Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Security Situation

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: We continue to see dramatic improvements in the security situation compared with the height of the troubles and paramilitary attacks continue to decrease. Those dramatic improvements could not have occurred without the enormous sacrifices made by the security services over 35 years. Today marks the fifth anniversary of the award of the George cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Her Majesty the Queen. That award recognised many cases of exceptional valour, which we remember again today.

Henry Bellingham: Although conventional terrorism is obviously under control, it has been replaced by a ruthless form of racketeering, which is being carried out by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that parts of the Province are descending into anarchy? Surely now is not the time to disband the two Territorial battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment.

Peter Hain: On the home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, discussions are currently taking place about compensation for those affected and their families, and I hope that it will be as generous as possible, because they deserve no less. On the overall situation, it is true that there is still too much criminality. Indeed, the feud between the loyalist groups in the summer was largely about gangsterism rather than the original political objectives of the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Ulster Volunteer Force. It is also true that there is still criminality among republicans, and the Assets Recovery Agency and the Organised Crime Task Force are cracking down on it together with the police.

William McCrea: A BBC television programme that was aired last night revealed that the police have warned a friend of the late Robert McCartney that there is a threat to his life from the Provisional IRA. How does that sit with ministerial statements that the Provisional IRA has turned its back on terrorism, and why will that organisation be rewarded in a debate later today?

Peter Hain: I have received no evidence from the police or any other quarter about a threat to Robert McCartney witnesses or friends by the Provisional IRA, but I have received reports that individual republicans in that locality have made threats. Those matters are being dealt with by the police and arrests have taken place, and we will continue vigorously to crack down on such activities.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State outline the precise level of engagement by any of the loyalist paramilitaries with either the de Chastelain commission or the Independent Monitoring Commission?

Peter Hain: I know that the hon. Lady takes a close interest in that matter, which she has discussed with me, and I am grateful for her interest. We hope that some of the loyalist groups will start to engage with the de Chastelain commission, and it is important that they do so. I understand that some preliminary contacts have been made and it is important that they progress to allow us to reach the same end as that achieved with the Provisional IRA.

Andrew Robathan: Was the Secretary of State ever a supporter of the troops out movement? If so, has he changed his mind?

Peter Hain: I dealt with those matters a long time ago. Following the Good Friday agreement, all the old arguments were transformed, including that one.

Lorely Burt: Will the Secretary of State comment on any recent incidents of loyalist violence? The Independent Monitoring Commission October report covers March to August this year, but there were loyalist riots in September over the Blackrock parade and the LVF has stated that its feud with the UVF is over. To emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), have any loyalist paramilitaries met the decommissioning commission? If the LVF means what it says, it should give up its weapons, too.

Peter Hain: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the Whiterock parade, but she has made an important point. I agree with her that it is important that the LVF, the UVF, the Ulster Defence Association and any other loyalist paramilitaries give up their weapons and engage with the de Chastelain commission, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has argued.

David Lidington: The Secretary of State will know that some senior members of Sinn Fein-IRA have declared openly that their intention is to establish so-called community restorative justice schemes as an alternative to policing by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Has he seen the comments by a spokesman for the rape crisis and sexual abuse centre in Northern Ireland, who said that members of community restorative justice schemes have
	"threatened women and attempted to cover up crimes committed by those with IRA, Sinn Fein or CRJ connections"?
	She continued:
	"Allowing such people power is like letting the lunatics run the asylum."
	Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the Government will provide sufficient assurances in their forthcoming guidelines on community restorative justice to ensure that nothing like the appalling practices reported by the rape crisis and sexual abuse centre can recur?

Peter Hain: Yes, I am happy to provide that unequivocal assurance. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because a great deal of mischief and misinformation has been spread about community restorative justice schemes. The guidelines for the new schemes will be published on 5 December by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), when he meets the Policing Board.
	Let me make it emphatically clear that, whatever claims are made by Sinn Fein members or others, these schemes, which operate in republican communities among others, are currently unregulated. We intend to bring them under proper regulation if they wish to attract public funds, although no provision has been made for that. I can unequivocally state that under our guidelines nobody who has been involved in paramilitary activity or organised crime would be allowed to work on the schemes. Appointments principles would be overseen by an independent body. There is no way in which those schemes will have a policing role in determining guilt or innocence. They will have no investigative role and will have to work with all the statutory agencies, including the police service.

David Lidington: I am grateful for those words, but can the Secretary of State also assure the House that he will provide an independent statutory basis for complaints against members of community restorative justice schemes? He will know that at present there is real fear on estates in Belfast, Derry and elsewhere that if these schemes are licensed by the Government, that will amount to licensed control by paramilitary mafia.

Peter Hain: It is emphatically not the case that any community restorative justice schemes that we endorse will in any way allow for control by paramilitary mafia, militia, or whatever else the hon. Gentleman chooses to call them. I agree with him on that. He should remember that these proposals stemmed from the community justice review some years ago and were widely endorsed on a cross-party basis. We needed to establish proper guidelines and regulation of what is now a bit of a free-for-all. In doing so, there will be an opportunity to consult, as the hon. Gentleman will see when we publish the guidelines on 5 December. We will consult him and other parties, as well as others in Northern Ireland, on the exact terms of the guidelines.

Education Administration

Mary Creagh: What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

David Anderson: What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Angela Smith: The Government are determined to focus resources on front-line services, not bureaucracy. Yesterday's announcement on the review of public administration included a new Education Authority replacing the functions of the five education and library boards and other support bodies. Through these fundamental changes, along with the existing measures to cut administration costs, I am determined to ensure that our children and schools see tangible benefits.

Mary Creagh: How will the organisation reforms that my hon. Friend sets out help to deal with the impact of falling pupil numbers in schools in Northern Ireland?

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of falling pupil rolls. There are about 47,000 empty desks in Northern Ireland's schools, and if no action is taken that figure could rise to 80,000 over the next 10 years. The new structures that I announced yesterday will ensure that we can be more responsive in dealing with that while placing a greater emphasis on strategic planning across Northern Ireland's schools estate. A failure to tackle the issue would put unacceptable pressure on school budgets. The measures announced yesterday will ensure that we go a long way towards tackling it.

David Anderson: The administrative changes may well result in people losing their jobs. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the work force will be taken care of, with, if possible, an agreement on no compulsory redundancies? Can the review look into the cost of duplication through segregated services? We should move much more towards an integrated education system so that we can save money and provide a better service.

Angela Smith: It is too early to talk about possible job losses, because current functions still need to be carried out, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything possible to ensure that any redundancies are voluntary. As the Secretary of State announced yesterday, we are establishing a Public Service Commission to ensure that the work force are fully engaged and involved in the decisions.
	My hon. Friend asked about duplication in the schools estate, which has been highlighted. The Good Friday agreement includes a commitment to integrated education. I have also given a commitment that parents' wishes will be adhered to.

Sammy Wilson: The Under-Secretary made much of the reforms or changes that were announced yesterday. A cursory glance shows that, on top of the Department of Education, we will have a new Education Authority, a new Education Advisory Forum, a new director of children's services, a new Public Service Commission, a new Northern Ireland Network for Youth and new district youth networks in council areas in Northern Ireland. Is that pruning or increasing administration? What costs does she hope to save through the announcement?

Angela Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is having some sport with his question. There are currently 67 public bodies, which have been whittled down to 20. There are five education and library boards for a population of 1.7 million, but the new Education Authority, which replaces the five boards and the support bodies, will make a fundamental difference to organisation and cut bureaucracy. I give him a clear assurance that, as a result of the announcement, we are cutting the number of bodies that deal with the same issues.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Under-Secretary give the comparative administrative costs of the education system of Northern Ireland and those for the rest of the United Kingdom? Will she confirm the importance of ensuring that as much money as possible goes directly to pupils on the front line?

Angela Smith: The purpose of the changes that we announced is to ensure that money goes directly to front-line services. I am not satisfied that the current administrative structures achieve that. It is difficult to give a comparison of costs because of the different structures in Northern Ireland and in England. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I can provide more detail for him. However, the purpose of the changes announced is to ensure that schools are not disadvantaged by overly bureaucratic systems that take money away from schools and put it into bureaucracy.

Kitty Ussher: Does the Under-Secretary agree that ending segregation in schools has an important part to play in the sustainability of the peace process? Will she undertake to discuss with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills whether there are lessons to be learned from the operation of faith schools in divided communities in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Angela Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that I am in regular contact with my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills about several issues. However, we have to bear in mind the different situation in Northern Ireland. When I talk to head teachers—indeed, the headmaster of Portora Royal school wrote to me today—I find the collaboration between schools from different sectors, which aims to ensure that pupils are brought closer together, encouraging. It is important when we consider the future in Northern Ireland that schools co-operate and collaborate to ensure that there is no sectarian divide in education.

Laurence Robertson: Although it would have been better if yesterday's announcement on the change to the Department of Education had been made in the House, we support the principle of trying to reduce administration costs. However, how much will it cost to dismantle the grammar school system? Why are the Government intent on destroying the best education system in the UK?

Angela Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before speaking at the Dispatch Box. There is no dismantling of the grammar school system in Northern Ireland. However, we are getting rid of selection. He may find it acceptable that 95 per cent. of children on the Shankill never get a chance of a grammar school education—I do not. Every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential. He should examine the proposals more closely.

Alasdair McDonnell: I note the Under-Secretary's comments about the consequences of the review of public administration in education and health. The jury is out on that for the moment. However, is the Secretary of State fully aware of the impact of some aspects of the review of public administration on local democracy? Is he aware that all political parties, with the exception of the military wing of Sinn Fein, oppose the proposed changes to the number of councils? If the proposals go ahead as planned, a canton or two somewhere will be under the control of one political paramilitary organisation.

Angela Smith: We are looking to devolve power to local councils, and one important issue is the role of those councils. Under the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State yesterday, far more functions will be carried out by local government than before. It is worth noting that the voluntary and business sectors across Northern Ireland have broadly supported our proposals to devolve more power to local councils.

Inward Investment

Daniel Kawczynski: What steps he is taking to promote Northern Ireland as a place for foreign direct investment; and if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry a long-term strategic plan to encourage greater foreign direct investment.

Peter Hain: The focus of Invest Northern Ireland's international sales and marketing effort is aggressively to promote all areas of Northern Ireland as attractive, viable locations for inward investment opportunities.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, I was slightly concerned by his comments in the media, in which he seemed to suggest that Northern Ireland was too small an entity to survive by itself. Will he give us an assurance that that is not the case, and that he will do everything possible to ensure that foreign direct investment comes into Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: I am doing everything possible in that regard; I was doing so last week in New York, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith), is going on a trade mission to China imminently. We are pressing for increased inward investment in Northern Ireland. Indeed, only yesterday in Belfast, I met the executives of Citigroup, a very exciting project that has already brought 375 jobs into Belfast. Belfast was chosen by Citigroup over other locations in Europe, including Dublin, because it is a much better place in which to invest. These are high-quality jobs, and we are continuing to bring them in. It is not a question of the Northern Ireland economy being too small, but the business community says—it agrees with me on this—that the economy needs to be much more entrepreneurial and enterprising, to build a stronger private sector right across Northern Ireland.

Chris Ruane: The southern Irish Government are one of the best Governments in the world at utilising Irish communities around the world to promote trade and investment in southern Ireland. What steps is my right hon. Friend's Department taking to use the Ulster communities around the world to promote trade and investment in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I was talking to exactly that community in New York and Washington last week, including senior figures in the business community who are working with the Government, and with me as Secretary of State, to find new opportunities to market Northern Ireland—now that we have a stable, prosperous Northern Ireland that is going from strength to strength—and to bring in American and other investors, who know that they will find it an excellent location in which to base themselves.

Peter Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that the selling point for investment in Northern Ireland is not subsidy but the excellence of the location and the work force? May I press him further on co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, which has already worked very successfully in tourism? To what extent does he seek to work with the Republic of Ireland in promoting the island of Ireland as an inward investment location?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are anxious to take every opportunity to get more investment, including from companies based in the Republic of Ireland. We want them to come to Northern Ireland and to see that there are better opportunities there and a less overheated economy. That was one of the reasons why Citigroup decided to locate in Belfast. It could have chosen the south—indeed, it might have been drawn there in the past—but Northern Ireland, especially with its skills base, is now a very attractive place in which to invest.

Mark Durkan: We have many examples of politicians being asked to resign for being economical with the truth. Does the Secretary of State recognise that he is possibly the first to be asked to resign for being truthful about the economy? Does he also recognise that, for many of us, promoting direct foreign investment in Northern Ireland would best be done in an all-Ireland context? Does he also acknowledge the lack of confidence in the performance of Invest Northern Ireland, particularly west of the Bann? In the absence of foreign direct investment, does he acknowledge the Government's duty to ensure more balanced employment in the east and west, through Government employment and public procurement?

Peter Hain: I agree that we must focus all our efforts—as indeed we are doing, and announcements will be made in the relatively near future—on ensuring that extra jobs and investment go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the north-west of Northern Ireland in particular. I also agree that at a time when we face global competition from China and India, let alone more immediate competition in eastern Europe, we need to consider all investment opportunities, including co-operation across the border, to maximise opportunities for the whole island of Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman says, Northern Ireland will benefit from that.

David Simpson: I was disappointed by what the Secretary of State said about the Northern Ireland economy when he was in New York. I have been involved in the Northern Ireland business community for 25 years, and I know that it is one of the strongest communities in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with Invest Northern Ireland to promote small businesses?

Peter Hain: I do that already, as does the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith). But let me return to what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning. Members of the business community, both in New York—where the comments were made—and at home in Northern Ireland, prefer honesty. Honesty about the Northern Ireland economy means saying "Yes, the economy is doing better than ever before, but the private sector is too small compared with the public sector, and there is therefore a question of sustainability." The business community wants a Secretary of State and a Government who recognise that and want to expand small businesses and the private sector, as indeed we do. It will invest in Northern Ireland more readily in the knowledge that the Government have that strategy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Regeneration

Huw Irranca-Davies: When he next intends to meet representatives of the loyalist community to discuss regeneration.

David Hanson: As part of my engagement with the loyalist community, over the next 12 weeks I will be meeting elected political representatives, community activists, churches and faith-based organisations, residents, women, youth, Loyal Orders and business representatives from the loyalist community. I am committed to using the results of that engagement to produce real improvements on the ground.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I was pleased to hear the long list of representatives of the loyalist community whom the Minister will meet, but will he take the opportunity to discuss the continuing criminality that emanates from some groups of ex-combatants and paramilitaries? It is one of the biggest impediments to regeneration in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: I certainly will. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government will take strong action against paramilitaries, and will ensure that criminality and paramilitary activity cease as part of the regeneration of the Province.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The private conversations must cease. The noise is unfair to Members who are interested in Northern Ireland questions.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that if regeneration is to succeed, whether in loyalist areas or in other parts of Northern Ireland, there must be meaningful peace and stability? Does he accept that without a much more transparent decommissioning of arms in all parts of Northern Ireland, there will never be that peace and stability? Will he therefore make the decommissioning process more transparent?

David Hanson: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the decommissioning process is ongoing. We have already received the report from the Independent Monitoring Commission following the IRA's statement in July. We are committed to ensuring that the process is transparent and open, and to building on the strong economy that Northern Ireland can have once the peace process continues. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my wish to see an end to IRA activity, an end to criminality, and an end to paramilitary activity.

John McFall: During his discussions, will the Minister ensure that the perception that loyalists and paramilitaries are being funded is dispelled? I know from experience of the valiant efforts by church and community groups to make progress in the community. Will the Minister redouble his efforts both to deal with the funding issue and to engage with the law-abiding elements in the loyalist communities?

David Hanson: The Government are particularly keen to engage with elected politicians and community groups. We recognise the need for regeneration not just in loyalist areas but in republican and nationalist areas, but we must also ensure that the Government take on board some of the challenges faced by loyalist areas. That is why a taskforce headed by the civil service is considering what we can do for loyalist and Protestant communities throughout Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: As we are the elected Democratic Unionist representatives of those areas, the Government will be aware of our commitment to their social and economic betterment. Does the Minister accept that the main issues are better housing, sustainable employment and a focus on education from the earliest age right through to adulthood, all of which must be tackled as part of a strategic plan? It must, however, be properly resourced and funded. That is the challenge for the Government.

David Hanson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he will know that we are trying hard to consider how best to improve educational opportunity, housing and employment, particularly in loyalist areas. He will recognise the taskforce's work over the past two years, which provided the opportunity to look into those matters. I have appointed the head of the civil service to examine those issues and he will report in January or February next year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with the Government to ensure that we deliver on the ground for those communities.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

David Simpson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 November.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the family of Police Constable Sharon Beshenivsky, who was tragically murdered on duty last Friday. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family at this time. I know that the whole House will also join me in sending condolences to the family of the British soldier killed in Iraq at the weekend. He was doing a vital and heroic job in helping that country towards democracy. Our country can be very proud of him.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

David Simpson: I thank the Prime Minister for listing his engagements and I concur with his sentiments and sympathy for the two serving members who lost their lives. My right hon. and hon. Friends will also concur with that. May I leave this thought with the Prime Minister? What would the British people and members of his party think of him if he offered an amnesty to the murderer of the police officer? Later on today, we will debate such matters in respect of Northern Ireland. Will the Prime Minister please comment on what I have said?

Tony Blair: I am meeting RUC widows this afternoon, at the request of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I totally understand the pain and anguish that there will be about this matter, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that already, as a result of the Good Friday agreement, people convicted of terrorist offences before 1998 have been released, so it is necessary to deal with those who have not been convicted but are nonetheless suspected of such offences before 1998. That is the reason for the measure that we are introducing. As I say, I fully understand the pain and anguish that it causes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also understand that it is something that has to be dealt with.

Martin Caton: The Prime Minister quite rightly celebrates the start of talks on Turkey's accession as an achievement of the UK presidency of the European Union, but next month, the fine Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk, faces trial for public denigration of Turkey, simply because he talked about the killing of Armenians and Kurds in the early part of the last century. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a prerequisite for membership of the EU should be the protection of the right of free speech; and will he also join me in commending those people in Turkey such as Pamuk who are campaigning for that right?

Tony Blair: First, may I tell my hon. Friend that during our presidency of the European Union, we raised that issue with Turkish justice and foreign Ministers? It is important, if Turkey wants to become a member of the EU, that it abide by the criteria for membership, including the criterion on freedom of expression. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend would also agree that Turkey has gone a considerable way down the path of reform over the past few years. I hope that these issues will also be dealt with as part of future reforms so that Turkey can proceed to EU membership, which I believe is in the interests of Turkey, Europe and the wider world.

Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences, and those of my party, to the family of WPC Beshenivsky. Her loss is a tragic reminder of the risks run by our police officers on our behalf every single time they go on duty. I join him also in expressing condolences to the family of the service man who was lost in Iraq over the weekend. That, too, was a tragic reminder of the sacrifices made on our behalf by those who are serving with such distinction in Iraq.
	Last month, the Secretary of State for Health said:
	"I am assured . . . that there are adequate supplies"
	of flu vaccine
	"available to GPs to ensure that anyone who is at risk and who therefore should have the vaccination can do so."—[Official Report, 17 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 637–8.]
	What went wrong?

Tony Blair: What has happened is that an assessment was made of the number of vaccines that would be necessary. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we ensured with the manufacturers that more than 14 million doses would be available this year. At the end of October, however, it appeared that there would be a shortfall because more people were demanding the vaccine. The Department of Health then ordered a further 200,000 doses.
	To be fair to the Department and the others involved in the planning, I should say that if everything had gone to plan, in the region of 2 million doses would probably not have been needed. It is correct to say that the demand for the doses has risen considerably, obviously as a result of people's concern. As I said, those responsible had built a very large contingency into their plans, but it appeared at the end of October that it was not large enough, and that is why they asked for more.

Michael Howard: At least the Prime Minister, unlike the Secretary of State, has not blamed general practitioners. On 5 October—that is, not at the end of October—my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, wrote to the Secretary of State. In his letter, he expressed concerns about the availability of vaccines. He did not get a reply until yesterday afternoon, less than two hours before the Secretary of State made her statement in this House. The British Medical Association also warned the right hon. Lady that it had similar concerns. Why did she not respond to those concerns?

Tony Blair: First, let me inform the House of what took place earlier this year in respect of the doses that were ordered. In accordance with the normal practice that has applied since 2000–01, a meeting was held with the UK vaccine industry group, at which the number of doses thought to be necessary for the year was worked out. This year, about 4 million more doses were ordered than was the case, say, five years ago. As a result, there should have been easily enough doses to cater for people over 65 and those at clinical risk. As I said a moment or two ago, the number of doses ordered meant that there should have been a probable surplus of 2 million. That is why people thought that there would be enough to cover any eventuality, including increased demand arising from the heightened concern about flu in recent weeks. It was at the end of October that it appeared that that was not the case. In early November, therefore, a further 200,000 doses were ordered. That will mean that the number of doses manufactured is somewhere in the region of 14.5 million.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister has referred to 14 million doses, but that is exactly the same as the number of doses that a Health Minister, last year, told us was being made available last year. So 14 million doses last year, 14 million this year: is it not true that the Department of Health cannot tell the difference between England and the UK? In its letter to GPs this week, it said that there were only 11 million people in the at-risk groups, and 14 million doses of vaccine. However, the first figure refers to England and the second to the UK as a whole. Is it any wonder that GPs and others are in despair at the inefficiency and incompetence of the Department of Health and the Secretary of State? If the Department can so comprehensively bungle the routine administration of the seasonal flu vaccine, what confidence can people have in its ability to cope with a pandemic of bird flu?

Tony Blair: As I have explained to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, over the past few years we have increased enormously the number of doses available. It is correct that a 100 per cent. takeup among people aged over 65 and those at clinical risk would amount to 11 million doses. However, the biggest takeup that there has ever been amounted to only 70 per cent. So even taking into account the UK-wide factor, the planners estimated earlier in the year that there would be a surplus of 2 million doses. Last year, there were more than 1 million surplus doses that had to be destroyed. It is sometimes difficult to plan accurately. They built in a large contingency, but it appears that that has not been enough and therefore they have ordered more doses.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister has yet again compared figures for those at risk that relate to England with figures relating to doses for the UK, as the Secretary of State did yesterday.
	Now let us look at another example of incompetence. Four weeks ago, the Leader of the House, when asked if the Government could guarantee energy supplies to business and domestic customers this winter, said, "Yes, they can". Does that guarantee still stand?

Tony Blair: Of course there will be difficulties with gas prices, because of the cold winter we are likely to have. The energy suppliers have made it clear that they are doing their level best to ensure that demand is properly met. There is not, as far as we are aware, a problem for domestic users. There is a problem for high-level industry users, but the only way to deal with that is to ensure that the industry can meet as much demand as possible from abroad. On the whole, industry prices for domestic consumers in the UK are way below the European Union average. We are not the only country with the problem, but it is not a problem that lies within the remit of the Government to resolve.

Michael Howard: Now we know that when this Government give guarantees, they last roughly four weeks. The Leader of the House also said that the Government would plan and prepare for this winter, but the Government commissioned studies on gas supplies for large manufacturers only two weeks ago. Why has it taken until November—when winter has already arrived, gas prices are almost five times higher than they were a month ago and manufacturers have been forced to switch from gas to oil to generate electricity—to find out whether business can cope this winter? Should not that have been done months ago?

Tony Blair: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggests that we should have a planned economy, in which the Government buy in—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is what he is suggesting. Let me just tell him the facts. UK energy prices—[Interruption.] Well, this is a rather strange situation. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should buy in energy from abroad. The Government work with the industry to ensure that it can meet demand. I repeat the fact that UK prices are actually the cheapest in the European Union and UK domestic prices are 40 per cent. below the European Union median. It is true that there will be an extra £10 billion of investment in additional energy supply, but it is not something that the Government on their own can resolve.

Michael Howard: If the Prime Minister thinks that gas prices for British industry are cheaper than gas prices for European industry, he is living in a dream world. I suggest that the Government should have done what they are now doing some months ago. The Met Office warned us months ago that we were likely to have the coldest winter for more than a decade. The CBI and others have been warning for months of possible gas shortages. Why have the Government ignored them for so long? Why, on flu vaccines and gas supplies, have the Government proved so thoroughly incompetent? Is it not clear that the Government are on the skids and that the Prime Minister has lost his grip and is incapable of dealing with the challenges that the country faces?

Tony Blair: Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman found it a bit of a stretch to link flu jabs with gas prices. As opposed to the situation in respect of the vaccine for flu, in which we sit down with manufacturers and help to ensure that enough is ordered, the gas market and prices depend on demand and the amount of gas available for electricity users and others to buy. The idea that the Government should make up the shortfall is utterly absurd.

Michael Howard: I am not saying that.

Tony Blair: Well, I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, other than points that seem absolutely absurd. We are doing our level best to make sure, for example, that we have additional infrastructure that allows us to import more energy. That we are doing, but what we cannot do—even this Government—is affect the current situation in the energy market, which is a product of all the reasons that we know about and which, I repeat, the Government alone cannot resolve.

Marsha Singh: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences on the murder of Officer Beshenivsky? I also extend my sympathy to Officer Milburn and wish her a speedy recovery. What more can be done to tackle gun crime in this country and to assist in the safety of our officers on the beat? Although Bradford is united in its horror, shock and grief, does the Prime Minister agree that this is a time for sober reflection, not a time to call for the routine arming of the police or for the restoration of the death penalty?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend says, it is important that we see, in a considered way, what more can be done. As he knows, since January 2004 anyone convicted of possession of an illegal firearm receives a mandatory five-year minimum sentence. Measures under the Violent Crime Reduction Bill will ban the sale, manufacture or import of realistic imitation firearms. The new Serious Organised Crime Agency will come into effect next April. With the agency, we are looking at the additional measures necessary to deal with organised crime. With organised crime, as we have done with antisocial behaviour in a completely different context, there will be a need for special and particular measures to deal with a very brutal new type of organised criminal gang that operates not just in this country but in other countries as well. We shall come back to the House with such proposals when we can.

Charles Kennedy: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends entirely with the expression of condolences for the families who have lost their loved ones in recent days, in such tragic circumstances, in the service of the police and our armed forces?
	May I return to the opening question from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)? As the Prime Minister has acknowledged elsewhere, those of us who disagreed with him over an aspect of the Terrorism Bill—90-days imprisonment without charge—did so as a matter of principle. Does he recognise that the Northern Ireland measures before the House this afternoon also raise matters of proper principled judicial process? Those of us who support the Good Friday agreement readily accept that the issue must be resolved, but if justice is to be seen to be done it is surely imperative that those who have committed terrorist atrocities appear in court and answer for their crimes.

Tony Blair: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows why we have to deal with the issue. We have to deal it with it for a very simple reason: under the provisions of the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—those convicted of offences before that agreement, in other words, before April 1998, have been released under the prisoner release scheme. We were always going to have to deal with the situation of those suspected of, or being pursued in respect of, crimes committed before April 1998, and that is what we are trying to do. The proposals were published about two and a half years ago and are a necessary part of ensuring that we follow the process through to its conclusion. I understand the anger that they provoke; it is very natural, especially from those who suffered so much from acts of IRA terrorism. However, I believe that they are a necessary part of securing the overall agreement.

Charles Kennedy: Why will not the Prime Minister provide direct linkage in the legislation to the early release scheme, which involves a proper court process? Many who, like the Alliance party and others, have worked tirelessly for reconciliation in Northern Ireland are asking a simple question: why will not the Prime Minister put the victims of terrorism higher up the priority list?

Tony Blair: The special judicial tribunal has the powers of a criminal court. It is true that this is a special procedure, because the circumstances are special. As for the right hon. Gentleman's remark about putting the victims of terrorism higher up the political agenda, it is precisely for that reason that, over the past eight years, I have worked to try to make sure that the Northern Ireland peace process succeeds. If it does succeed—we have come a long way in eight years—it is sometimes because we do things that are uncomfortable and difficult, but none the less necessary. It is called, I am afraid, making difficult political decisions.

Gerald Kaufman: Having just returned from the first ever Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Palestinian territories, applauding my right hon. Friend's commitment to peace between Israel and Palestine, and recognising the Israeli need for security, may I ask him to make representations to the Israel Government about their building of the separation wall deep into Palestinian territory, turning old Hebron into a ghost town by building gates and turnstiles in the streets and obstructing Palestinian movements with 600 permanent checkpoints, plus flying checkpoints? Does he not agree that peace will not be possible if the Israelis persist in turning Palestine into a fragmented police state?

Tony Blair: We have continually made representations about the wall or the fence. However, we should recognise that, in addition to trying to normalise relations between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government, it is important that all forms of support for terrorism on the Palestinian side cease as well. If the terrorism stops, we have a better opportunity to make sure that relations between the two sides can be normalised.

Simon Hughes: The Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales has made welcome progress in recent years, but I hope that the Prime Minister will agree that conviction rates of fewer than two in three for sexual offences in a quarter of the country, fewer than two in three even for homicide offences in four areas, including London, and about two in three for all violent crimes leave room for improvement. Will he tell the House how he proposes to increase the success rate, so that more serious offenders are prosecuted and successfully convicted?

Tony Blair: The main part of what the Crown Prosecution Service is doing now is working in a far more integrated way with the police to make sure that charges are properly brought and that therefore prosecutions can be successfully mounted. In respect of sexual offences, although there is an increase in the number of recorded crimes, it is important to realise that that is in part because we are asking more of the victims of sexual offences to come forward. Sometimes, however, it is difficult to secure convictions in those types of case, but we continually look at how we can improve the situation. Overall, the Crown Prosecution Service—as, indeed, the hon. Gentleman implied in the first part of his question—is working a lot more effectively than a few years ago.

Michael Meacher: My right hon. Friend told the Liaison Committee yesterday that the Government have got to take on nuclear power. Why does he believe that, when we are already comfortably meeting our Kyoto climate change target and can clearly meet future, more exacting targets with a steady expansion of renewables, when nuclear is more expensive than wind power, coal and gas, when it has already generated more than 10,000 tonnes of undisposed of highly toxic nuclear waste, when it creates an obvious major terrorism—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows that the right hon. Gentleman is displeased about this matter.

Tony Blair: Let me say to my right hon. Friend that the reason why I think that this has to go on the agenda for discussion is very simple. It is true that we will meet our Kyoto targets—the Government have played a major part in the action on climate change—but it is also true that by 2020, the amount of energy coming from nuclear power will decline from just over 20 per cent. to 4 per cent. It will be difficult to try to meet all that through renewables or additional gas. That is why we need a proper and thorough debate on the issue, and I look forward to joining that debate with my right hon. Friend.

Future Aircraft Carriers

Julian Lewis: When he expects the future aircraft carriers to be brought into service with the Royal Navy.

Tony Blair: We are committed to delivering this important capability in a time scale that meets the requirements of the Royal Navy. We will set the dates when the carriers will be brought into service when we are ready to commit to manufacture.

Julian Lewis: If, as the Prime Minister now suggests, it is not appropriate to set target delivery or in-service dates until the order is placed, can he tell me why his own Defence Ministers on five occasions between April 2004 and June 2005 told both Houses of Parliament that the target in-service dates would be 2012 and 2015? Why are they no longer prepared to say that?

Tony Blair: The reason for giving those dates was the way in which the existing carriers get phased out. Those are possible dates, but we cannot give a firm commitment to a date until we are ready to commit to manufacture. That simply cannot be done at the present time. As I say, it is perfectly possible that those dates will be the dates that we choose in the end, but at this time we cannot give a firm date until the commitment to manufacture is in place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a closed question.

Engagements

Maria Miller: Last week, the local inspector threw out plans for 3,000 houses in Basingstoke because he felt that local communities could not cope with the scale of building. Is it not time for the Government to stop dumping thousands of houses on Basingstoke and the rest of the south-east and to let local councils plan the future of their towns and villages?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. It is important to ensure that we build enough houses in this country so that people, especially younger people, can access affordable housing. We try to do that in a planned way, but for the Conservative party to pretend that no new houses need to be built in the south at all is absurd.

Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend seen the shocking survey from Amnesty International that shows that a third of those questioned think that women who flirt or are drunk are partly responsible if they are raped? Will he support Amnesty's campaign against all forms of violence against women and assert that all such violence is totally unacceptable and liable to prosecution?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is totally unacceptable and should be liable to prosecution.

Simon Burns: Last night, the House debated the straightforward motion
	"That this House endorses . . . a cross-party consensus on carbon reduction."
	Why did the Government vote against it?

Tony Blair: Because until we work out the means of ensuring that there is carbon reduction, it is all very well for the Conservative party to join the Liberal Democrats and insist that the Government say that we must reduce carbon by a certain amount by a certain date—actually beyond the targets that we have already set—but they also need to be prepared to say how to do that. The one time we put forward a specific measure, namely, the climate change industrial levy, the Conservative party voted against it. When it has some serious propositions to make, we will listen, but while it continues to behave as if opposition were its natural state, we will not.

Dan Norris: This Friday, as part of anti-bullying week, Lib-Dem controlled Bristol city council will call on its teachers not to punish or blame pupils who bully other pupils. What message does the Prime Minister have for those who adopt a no-blame approach, which, in my view, is dangerous and reckless, does nothing for the victims and does nothing to make bullies change their behaviour?

Tony Blair: If what my hon. Friend says is correct about the Liberal Democrats, then it is an extraordinary thing for even them to do and I am shocked by it. [Interruption.] To describe oneself as shocked by the Liberal Democrats is perhaps an oxymoron.
	I profoundly disagree with the position taken by the council. Bullying should be punished. Children who bully must be made to understand the harm that they have been doing. New sanctions are available. I am pleased that in the schools White Paper we are giving teachers an unambiguous right to discipline. It is absolutely necessary, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on that serious problem.

Gas Supplies

John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to comment on the gas supply and market.

Malcolm Wicks: The facts are that so far this winter there have been no gas shortages and supply and demand have remained in balance. Demand from gas is being met by deliveries from the North sea and the rest of the UK continental shelf, the interconnector, imports through the Isle of Grain and storage. We are also seeing a reduction in demand from gas-fired power stations and some large industrial users of gas in response to increased prices.
	Gas storage levels remain full or nearly full. National Grid's daily report for 21 November shows short and long-range storage as being at 100 per cent. and 98 per cent. respectively. Medium range remains at 66 per cent. pending the new Humbly Grove facility, which is in the process of filling up.
	We will continue to liaise closely with National Grid throughout the winter.

John Hemming: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he confirm that on Saturday 93 GWh were taken from medium storage and 393 GWh from long-term storage; on Sunday 138 GWh were taken from medium storage and 469 from long-term storage; and on Monday 231 GWh were taken from medium-term storage and 496 GWh from long-term storage, which has maxed out at that rate? At that rate of withdrawal, we could breach the safety monitors during winter. At what point will the Secretary of State be concerned if that continues?

Malcolm Wicks: I should point out that I am not the Secretary of State. [Hon. Members: "Yet."] Let us wait until the end of the winter.
	The serious point is that in terms of the gas market, supplies are taken from storage from time to time. They are then filled up. Let us remember that the North sea is this country's natural storage. The market is building—it is a matter for the market, not for the Government—more storage facilities, with 10 new projects under way. Reports from National Grid this morning say that what is happening to the spot gas price is irrational. It tells me that it is awash with gas at the moment.

Joan Walley: While I understand that there is an issue about gas supplies, that has a bearing on the cost of gas to intensive energy users. Will my hon. Friend ensure that as soon as the cold spell is over, the price of gas will go down to what it wasbefore? Will he meet pottery and ceramic manufacturers, who are concerned about the effects on production capacity of the price increase to £1.60 per therm?

Malcolm Wicks: Of course I will meet my hon. Friend's colleagues from industry. Since the spring, we have met intensive users of energy and their representative bodies. Most of business buys gas in the normal way, as do domestic customers. Globally, prices for energy are rising, often linked to the price of a barrel of oil. However, our prices are often lower than the median in the rest of the European Union. That is a fact. The particular problem is with intensive users of energy, who use gas as the feedstuff for producing chemicals, for example. They—not the Government—have chosen to buy on the spot market. It is one private company signing a contract with another, and they are suffering from very high prices. We are concerned about that and we are working with them, but as was said during Prime Minister's questions, the market is a liberal, commercial, privatised market in which judgments are made by private companies. We do not need someone posing as a shadow Stalinist Minister of Power saying that the Government should take command. To put the matter in context, the companies in question, although important British industries, represent 0.2 per cent. of companies that use gas and 0.05 per cent. of all companies in the UK. I am not complacent, but we have to put the present concerns in an intelligent and factual context.

Bernard Jenkin: But the Government are responsible for the framework for long-term investment in the security of energy supplies in this country. Industry will be astonished to hear the Minister say that we are "awash with gas" when it faces the prospect of interruption to its gas supplies. The failure of the security of UK gas supplies reflects the failure of eight years of Labour energy policy.
	We have not sought to provoke unnecessary anxiety about gas supplies, but we have been raising the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry for many years. I wrote to the Secretary of State weeks ago to ask about contingency measures, but he never replied. The right hon. Gentleman promised a debate on security of supplies, but we have not had it. Is it not astonishing that the Government have held their first meetings with industry only in the past few weeks?
	Can the Minister confirm that for many industries the price of gas for delivery is five times higher than it was a mere four weeks ago? Does not that give the lie to the Prime Minister's claim that we are still paying the lowest prices in Europe? The Energy Intensive Users Group says
	"Industry is already facing the highest electricity and gas prices in Europe this winter."
	Will the Minister for Energy inform the Prime Minister, who did not seem to know that? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the emergency summit at No. 10 on 9 November concluded that there is a very high possibility that industry will have its supplies interrupted?
	Now that the Minister has done all the contingency planning that he claims to have done, will he tell the House who decides which businesses are cut off and to whom is that person accountable? Is it possible that gas-fired powered stations, which affect electricity supplies, will be cut off, too? Can he assure the House that every business that might have its supplies interrupted because of gas shortages has been informed and that they will not receive a fax five minutes before the gas is shut off, as has happened before? Have businesses been informed of the criteria that will determine which ones are shut down first? How much warning will they receive?
	Does not the present situation, together with the splits and disputes going on in Government, underline the chaos of the Government's energy policy?

Malcolm Wicks: The last question was the simplest and the answer to it is: no. One or two people might be trying to talk up a crisis in gas prices, but the energy companies, most of business, the DTI, National Grid and Ofgem are not part of that. The more loose and totally inaccurate talk we hear, the worse the position may become.
	The companies that have chosen—they have chosen, not I—to have contracts under which they buy on the spot   market are suffering from high prices. I have acknowledged that and we are talking with the companies concerned, which include chemicals companies and some of the steel companies. However, let us look at the prices for medium-sized businesses—the hon. Gentleman might want to know the facts as opposed to the bluster. For such businesses, the latest figures available—for the summer—show that the price of gas is 17 per cent. lower than in Germany, 4 per cent. lower than in France and 4 per cent. lower than the EU median, and the price of electricity is 49 per cent. lower than in Germany, 10 per cent. lower than in France and 20 per cent. lower than the EU median. Those are the facts.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to a meeting at No. 10 Downing street, to suggest that my Department reacted only in mid-November is totally nonsensical. If he cares to table a written question—no, I shall write to him anyway detailing our meetings. In summer, I met representatives of the oil and gas industry operating in the North sea and the UK continental shelf to make sure that they were doing the repairs and had the spares necessary to ensure that they were in the best possible position this winter. I met the supply companies on two occasions—my officials have done so more often—to make sure that they are in the best possible position this winter. In November, the industry suggested that there were one or two other actions that we might wish to investigate, and of course we listened to their advice. However, to suggest that we are not prepared is nonsense.

Paddy Tipping: Has the Minister seen reports in some newspapers suggesting that domestic customers could be cut off? Will he take the opportunity to deny such scaremongering and confirm that even in the most severe winter, gas supplies to domestic customers will continue?

Malcolm Wicks: I am very happy to do so, because while we need to reassure business that its prices are not higher than the European average—we need reassurance as opposed to panic—it is even more important that householders, including some of our eldest and best, the vulnerable and the frail, are reassured. If those people hear that there may be energy cuts from reports that, in fact, are inaccurate, scaremongering nonsense, they may fear the effects of the cold weather that we are now experiencing. The domestic customer is not threatened at all, and through home energy efficiency schemes, winter fuel payments, the targeted focus of pension credit and so on, the Government are doing their best to make sure that elderly people are warm this winter. That is my first priority.

Robert Smith: The Minister said that his first priority is the elderly, so with the increased prices for energy, how many more people will suffer fuel poverty this winter compared with last winter? Will he emphasise the important lesson that we must improve energy efficiency and the housing stock so that people can keep warm in their houses and make best use of their energy?
	Next Thursday, the Minister will chair the Energy Council of Europe. How does he plan to deal with what the European Commission has identified as serious malfunctions in the European energy market? While our liberalised market is connected to a malfunctioning market there are serious concerns about the way in which the latter market will impact on our market. What progress does he plan to make next Thursday in sorting out that market? He has held meetings with representatives from industry and UK continental shelf operations, but what meetings has he had with the Environment Agency to ensure that there is minimal impact on the environment and that we maximise the economic benefits this winter? Finally, while there are arguments about our relative position in Europe, the reality is that prices are going up this winter, which is a serious concern for the economy, especially for those parts that may be shut down.

Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman raised two or three serious matters. I chair the Energy Council during our presidency, and it meets next week, on 1 December. We have made it clear from the beginning of our presidency that the issue of market liberalisation in the rest of Europe was at the top of our agenda—indeed, it is the top item on the agenda next week. The Commission has published two major reports on the issue, and it has made it quite clear that there are "serious malfunctions" in the European market. We will discuss that with Ministers, and we need to take action, because we have market liberalisation in the UK, and we need it across the European Union. That is the policy, and it should quickly become practice.
	On fuel poverty, I accept that prices are rising for the domestic customer. However, they are rising across the world, so we need to see the problem in a global context. Energy demand in China, for example, is increasing by 15 per cent. a year, and the hurricanes have not helped. There are therefore serious difficulties, but we must do our utmost to protect people to whom we refer as the fuel-poor. I tend to think of them as elderly and other vulnerable people who will be cold this winter. We have taken action on several fronts, as I detailed earlier, to protect that high-priority group.

Michael Clapham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that while increased demand is forcing gas prices up, the very fact that gas prices are connected to oil prices is also forcing the price up? Will he also confirm that last winter, at peak cold periods, 48 per cent. of our electricity was generated by coal stations, which are ready and available to produce electricity in cold periods this winter?

Malcolm Wicks: It is right to be reminded that we have a mixture of energy sources in this country, including the still very significant role of coal. For that reason, when the details of the energy review are announced by the Prime Minister, possibly quite soon, it will be a review of energy as a whole, contrary to what some people are speculating, and the future of coal will be one of the focuses of that important review. I am very mindful of that point.

Peter Luff: There will be a degree of scepticism about the Minister's claims about relative prices in Europe and the UK, but leaving that on one side, he has rightly highlighted, in answer to the question from the Liberal Democrats, the importance of the single European market in energy. When he came before the Trade and Industry Committee a few weeks ago, the Minister said that that was the highest priority, but there is not much sign of progress yet. He speaks about forcing compliance on other countries when he chairs the meeting next week. How does he intend to do that? Does he think that there is a realistic chance of making a breakthrough in those crucial negotiations? The market is determined by Governments, and the British Government have a golden opportunity to help resolve it.

Malcolm Wicks: There has been progress. The market has been the major focus during our presidency. The Energy Council does not meet till next week. Meanwhile, with our strong approval, the Commission has published two major evidence-based hard-hitting reports. Commissioner Piebalgs, whom I met earlier this week, is as enthusiastic as I am to drive the matter forward. I believe we will see real action on it. The hon. Gentleman expressed some doubts about prices. Whenever these issues are raised, I try to produce evidence—an old-fashioned hankering after the facts. I hope that might become more fashionable on the Opposition Benches. I have given the House some evidence already. Let me also say—I am surprised that the party of the market is not parading this more than I—that between 1990 and 2004, British industry paid an estimated £7.9 billion less than German industry for gas. Those are the facts, as opposed to the nonsense and the scaremongering.

Paul Farrelly: The Minister rightly refutes the suggestion that he has been in touch with industry only over the past few weeks. I know that he has met high intensive users, including the pottery industry, throughout the year, and they have told me they are grateful that the Government are listening. None the less, there is great concern about gas prices in particular. What can my hon. Friend do to assure the industry, including ceramics, about the prices that it will have to pay not only in the months ahead, but next year and in the future?

Malcolm Wicks: We have touched on some of that in relation to the importance of market liberalisation. The dialogue with the industry which, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, and I thank him for that, has been going on for a very long time at both ministerial and official level, is part of that process. One body of evidence to bring to bear on the debate at this stage is that there is now a great deal of investment in new infrastructure. I opened the Isle of Grain terminal yesterday, and I am told that the next ship will arrive today with liquefied natural gas. The Langeled pipeline to Norway is being built. There are many, many other projects, including upgrades of the interconnector, which will mean that in terms of the infrastructure of terminals, LNG and pipelines, we will have capacity for some 26 per cent. more gas in a year or so than we currently have. So the infrastructure and the investment by the private market are there.

Michael Weir: The Minister will understand that we in Scotland find it extraordinary that there is a gas shortage and rocketing prices, when we produce eight times the amount that we consume—indeed, we land at St. Fergus alone six times what we consume. He mentioned infrastructure, but does he accept that much of the problem in the UK as a whole with supply and rising spot prices is due to the lack of investment in the pipeline system over many years, leading to a lack of flexibility and capacity for storage to meet periods of exceptional demand? He spoke about improvements in infrastructure, but when can we go back to manufacturers in our constituencies and tell them that there is no chance of interrupted gas supplies in the future?

Malcolm Wicks: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the strong partnership between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have mentioned the investment that is now taking place, which should make an impact on the price issues. I repeat that for most of the economy, certainly for the domestic customer, the spot gas prices are not the relevant feature; they are for those companies who are the intensive users, using gas as the feedstuff for chemicals and other materials, who have chosen freely, as part of the private market, to sign such contracts, which often enable them to reduce their own demand at difficult times. But I hope that, with the extra supply of gas and more generally with the announcements that we have recently made about connecting up the Scottish islands to the national grid in terms of wind power, the situation will steadily improve. I expect it to.

Michael Jack: The Minister may have heard on the radio this morning the director of the interconnector saying that 30 per cent. of his capacity was not being used due to structural problems in the German gas market that were inhibiting our ability to obtain supplies. What does the hard-hitting report in the Energy Council to which he has just referred say that Germany should do and when should they do it by? Will he ensure that the matter is on the Prime Minister's agenda when he meets the new German Chancellor to ensure that we have some action on this by the end of the year?

Malcolm Wicks: The Prime Minister has recently talked about energy and energy strategy as an important component of the European debate, so he needs no reminding about the importance of that. I have acknowledged and talked about what needs to be done in terms of ensuring fair competition across Europe. We believe that liberalisation—an end to monopolies—is not only good for the UK consumer, but, critically, is also important for the German consumer, business and domestic, as well as elsewhere in Europe. That is why we are driving this forward.
	One has to keep reminding the House that the interconnector is a matter for private enterprise; it was built not by the state or the EU, but by entrepreneurs with their money so they make the decisions about it. Nevertheless, I am advised that on a daily basis at the moment—these are bound to be average figures that will vary from day to day—some 25 to 30 million cu m of gas are flowing through the interconnector to Great Britain.

Crispin Blunt: The Government have no excuse for complaining about the state of the European market. Three years ago at the Energy Council there was a qualified majority in favour of imposing on France and Germany a liberalised market in gas and electricity by 2005. Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister's predecessor, chose not to press the issue and to do a deal with the French and the Germans that has led to the compromise that means that now there is not a liberalised market in Europe, which is causing us precisely the problems that we are now experiencing with the Germans being able to withhold supplies to the United Kingdom through the interconnector. Equally, the Government failed to take decisions in the Energy White Paper, and now we are to have an energy review by the Prime Minister. Will the Government understand that they must face up to their responsibilities to take decisions in a timely fashion and not go on putting off difficult decisions because of the presentational problems?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not understand the reference to presentational problems, because the issue is top of the Energy Council agenda next week. We have put it there and we have consistently—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have an opportunity to question a Minister, I expect them to be silent for his reply.

Malcolm Wicks: It should be gas, not gassing, I think.
	We have significantly pushed the issue within the EU. I have described the two new reports as hard hitting. The hon. Gentleman may want to read them one day. They are hard hitting. We need to push the matter through during our presidency, and after that. We do believe in market liberalisation; it is good for European business and good for British business.

Peter Bone: In evidence before the Trade and Industry Committee, we were told that wholesale gas prices in the United Kingdom were more than 50 per cent. higher than in the EU. When will the Government fight for a level playing field in the EU on the matter, or have they given up totally on the EU?

Malcolm Wicks: We are committed to the EU. Following my appearance before the Select Committee, we sent it some statistical evidence. I repeat that, when one looks at the record over 10 or more years and the data today, our gas prices, both for domestic customers and the business community, are lower than the median. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) shakes his head. I can present him with the evidence; I cannot make him understand it. I have acknowledged—it is an important acknowledgement—that those heavy users choosing to buy on the spot market are having to pay very high prices, and we are doing our best to look at that and improve the situation. The market is through great investment.

Vincent Cable: The Minister said that Britain does not need a strategic gas reserve, as we have for oil, because of the reserves in the North sea. Will he describe the circumstances and the legal powers under which, in an emergency, he could require private companies to sell into the market?

Malcolm Wicks: As I have explained, the contracts that some intensive users freely sign mean that in certain circumstances they will take less gas than in normal times. Some companies make money by selling it back to the grid. That is the reality of the market in that situation. It would be in only the most extreme andunlikely circumstances, in serious emergency conditions, that the state, via the national grid, might have to intervene. I answer the question because the hon. Gentleman asked it, but no rational commentator anticipates such a situation.

Richard Ottaway: The Minister has openly acknowledged that we now import gas through the interconnector. That has profound political implications, particularly with regard to the energy mix. Does he have a long-term policy on whether there should a limit on an acceptable level of gas imports?

Malcolm Wicks: My own Member of Parliament has asked me an important question. [Interruption.] I always think that how one votes is a secret. The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about national security and the geopolitics of energy policy, and that is a matter of growing concern. In 2004 we became a net importer of gas, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and in a year or so we will become a net importer of oil. Therefore, we are moving from energy island to a heavy dependence on imports of energy, notwithstanding the issues around coal and the contribution of renewables, and so on, which I could go into if we had more time. Therefore, as the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference in Brighton—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was there on that occasion—we now need rigorously to consider issues relating to our depending on some unstable parts of the world, and that will be an important dimension of the new energy review.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister has accused Opposition Members of scaremongering about the prospect of cuts in the gas supply. May I direct him to the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), a former Minister with responsibility for energy, in January 2005 in Westminster Hall, when he said that gas supplies could indeed run short if there were a cold snap this winter, or next winter? Will he take time to familiarise himself with those remarks, and perhaps look into what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by that?

Malcolm Wicks: We all recognise that the balance between energy supply and demand for two or three years is difficult. That is to some extent why we are having this discussion. Why is that? I am advised that it is partly because the rundown of oil and gas from the North sea and the rest of the UK continental shelf has happened at a faster rate than was being predicted only a few years ago. It is also because—it is regrettable but it is where we are—the heavy investment by the market in infrastructure, such as pipelines, liquefied natural gas terminals and the rest, is only now coming on stream, or will be in a year or so. I rather wish that it had been there a year or so ago. Of course I do. But there is this time lag. There is a tightness in the market, but domestic consumers will not be affected and most of business will not be affected, although high prices are now a global phenomenon. However, there is the issue, and I am repeating myself now, of the heavy users, which is where the difficulty is, if people have chosen, rightly or wrongly—it is their commercial judgment—to buy on the spot market.

BILL PRESENTED

Climate Change (Contraction and Convergence)

Mr. Colin Challen presented a Bill to make provision for the adoption of a policy of combating climate change in accordance with the principles of contraction and convergence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 92].

Registration Service

Brian Iddon: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about certain offices under the Registration Service Act 1953; to make provision about the holders of certain offices under that Act and the appointment of persons to such offices; and for connected purposes.
	I declare an interest as the honorary patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales. I was appointed to that position shortly after my election to Parliament in May 1997 and succeeded the former Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, Joyce Quin, when she was appointed Minister of State, Home Office, in the new Government.
	Registration officers are appointed, accommodated and paid by local authorities, which also provide their pensions. However, because they are statutory officers, they have no legal employer, and only the Registrar General at the Office for National Statistics in Pimlico has the power to dismiss them. A registration officer has duties and responsibilities imposed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Registration Service Act 1953.
	Registration officers are held responsible for their own acts or omissions. As statutory officers, when they are dismissed they have no right of appeal against unfair or constructive dismissal to an employment tribunal. The Registrar General will hear an appeal, but only if new material evidence is available. My Bill will result in the post holders becoming employees of the local authority. Notwithstanding that, they would retain their statutory duties under the Registration Acts. My Bill will also result in consequential amendments to the Registration Service Act 1953.
	The Bill has the full support of the Government, the Registrar General and the Front-Bench spokesmen for the two major Opposition parties, whom I thank for their support. It also has the full support of the representative organisations of the employees whom it will affect, namely their professional organisation, SORO, Unison, the employer's organisation and the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services.
	My Bill is non-controversial. It would bring the employment of registration officers into line with all those currently employed by local authorities, and would impose no additional financial burden on local authorities. When registration officers change their status and become local authority employees, there will be no redundancies and their existing pay and conditions will be unaffected. Moreover, there will be consultation in accordance with a national joint council agreement that is being negotiated between the employer's organisation and Unison.
	There are currently 1,700 registration officers, who are known as principal officers, working in accommodation provided by local authorities, and they will be affected by my Bill. In the past 10 years, 18 of them have been dismissed from their posts. Since 1997, I have tabled several written and oral questions and suggested a debate on the issue more than once at business questions, and I held an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall in June 2003. I have lost count of the number of Ministers whom I have dealt with, in both the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, in an attempt to correct the anomaly that this Bill would right.
	Following my early lobbying, I learned that the White Paper "Fairness at Work" contains a proposal to allow existing employment rights to be extended to all statutory officers and that section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 provides a way forward. The DTI embarked on a consultation exercise on section 23 of the 1999 Act in 2003, which is known as the employment status review, and a statement about the use of section 23 is expected towards the end of this year or the beginning of the next.
	Section 23 allows the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to extend to persons who do not currently enjoy them certain employment rights, but an employment order under section 23 has not yet been made. In parallel with those DTI procedures, the Treasury planned a major reform of the civil registration service, the first since the service was established in 1837.
	In September 1999, the Registrar General published a consultation paper, "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", which resulted in the publication in January 2002 of the White Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change". The Government announced that civil registration reform would be delivered by means of the order-making powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, and another consultation document, "Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change" was published in 2003. The document proposed that the titles of superintendent registrar, registrar of births, marriages and deaths or additional registrar of marriages should disappear, and that local authorities should become the legal employers of all those involved in the civil registration service, in which case the demarcation between registration officers at marriage ceremonies and registering births, deaths and marriage events would cease.
	The first of two planned draft orders, the Regulatory Reform (Registration of Births and Deaths) (England and Wales) Order 2004, was laid before Parliament on 22 July 2004. It is the largest regulatory reform proposal ever presented to Parliament, with 68 articles and 15 schedules amending 20 Acts. The House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee report on the first draft order was published in December 2004. It rejected using delegated legislation to reform the civil registration service or the part of it that deals with births and deaths. A second regulatory reform order was planned to reform the civil registration service relating to marriage, but it has not been laid. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also rejected the first draft order. Both Committees regarded the overall package of proposals as an inappropriate use of the powers in the 2001 Act.
	On 16 November this year, the Financial Secretary launched a further consultation paper, "Registration Modernisation", which sets out how local authorities are to be given greater responsibility for the delivery of the local registration service. It also contains details of other important changes to modernise civil registration. Some of these changes will require primary legislation, and further delays are inevitable. Because of that, I beg leave of the House to introduce this Bill, which in the meantime will remove the uncertainty that has hung over the employment of registration officers for so long and which will deliver them the right of appeal to an employment tribunal should they be unfairly or constructively dismissed. Surely that is what this House wants in the 21st century? I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Eric Forth: I was going to start by saying that I hesitate to intervene in a matter in which the hon. Gentleman has such expertise, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, I rarely hesitate to do any such thing.
	I want to say a few words because I have been contacted by a registration officer, who has expressed some concern about the process that the hon. Gentleman has described and the way in which it has been conducted. My reservations are more about process than about content, although I must say that when I see a Government paper that begins with, "The modernisation of", my blood runs cold and I have serious reservations.
	I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the subject and his expertise, and I defer to them. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is on the Front Bench, because the Bill that the hon. Gentleman is introducing has two problems.
	First, I suspect that he is trying to implement what should be Government policy by using the private Member's Bill route. I say to him in all friendliness that if he thinks that that will be a method of quickly delivering the solution that he seeks, he could not be more mistaken. Whatever date he selects for his Bill, it will already be some way down the order because most of the primary slots have already been taken. There is therefore little chance of its being debated and agreed by the House. I hope that he does not raise too many expectations about his Bill, because choosing this route is naturally hazardous.
	Secondly, the Bill is at cross purposes with the very consultation process that the hon. Gentleman openly describes. As recently as 16 November, the Financial Secretary said:
	"the Government announced that they would actively consider other ways of delivering the key elements of civil registration modernisation."—[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 51WS.]
	He went on to say that the consultation paper, "Registration Modernisation", had been published on the same day. That paper gives a deadline for reply to the consultation in February.
	My question is therefore this: is it reasonable to expect the House to agree to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which deals with matters in the consultation paper, when the consultation has hardly started and before the end period for the consultation in February? That strikes me as being a somewhat bizarre way of going about things and, to put it mildly, puts carts before horses. I appeal to the House not to approve the Bill today but to wait until the consultation process has been completed. There is some unease among registration officers about the speed with which this has been done, about whether full consultation has been allowed, and about whether individual officers have been able to express their point of view fully.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a quiet word with his colleague, the Financial Secretary, so that they can sort out exactly what they are trying to do—the Government on the one hand and the hon. Gentleman on the other—and try to match more closely the consultation process with the suggested track of the Bill. If it survives today, some of us will be keeping a very close eye on it in the hope that it does not ultimately conflict with the consultation process or with the unease that is being expressed by registration officers outside the House.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to brought in by Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr.   David Anderson, Mary Creagh, Jim Dobbin, Kelvin Hopkins and Mr. David Kidney.

Registration Service

Dr. Brian Iddon accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about certain offices under the Registration Service Act 1953; to make provision about the holders of certain offices under that Act and the appointment of persons to such offices; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed [Bill 78].

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tabled two questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with a named date of reply of 17 November. They related to the Bill that we are about to consider. I have as yet received no reply to those questions. Can you advise hon. Members what action they should take when such replies are not received?

Mr. Speaker: I have taken some advice to help the hon. Gentleman out. He has put the matter on the record, and he should follow that up with further questions. Perhaps he should make another visit to the Table Office. That is the piece of advice that I would give him at the moment.

Eric Forth: A nod is as good as a wink.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathies and condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) on the sudden and shocking death of his brother, Endel. All our concerns are with him and with the family. I know that it must be a terrible strain for him to be in the Chamber today. It is a mark of the duty that he gives to this House, and always has done, on this important issue that he is here. Will he please accept our sympathies?
	Because I realise that this is a controversial Bill, not least among victims in Northern Ireland, I shall be especially generous with interventions, but if the House will allow me I would prefer to resist them until I have had a chance to set the context for six or seven minutes. I shall then be happy to take as many as possible.
	Northern Ireland and Irish terrorism have, over the generations, presented unique challenges to this House, to Governments of both parties, to the forces of law and order, and to society, particularly in Northern Ireland but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. This House, and successive Governments of both parties, have been faced with difficultoften exceptionalproblems to deal with. As a result, Ministers have had to adopt exceptional policiesand, in recent times, abnormal measuresto normalise Northern Ireland, so that today it enjoys more peace, stability and prosperity than ever.
	I believe that the proposals in the Bill should be considered in that light. It sets out to deal with one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that the Government have faced in the long and complex process of taking Northern Ireland forwardthat is, those terrorist suspects who are on the run outside the reach of our police or our courts.
	Anyone who is, or has been, involved in trying to make political progress in Northern Ireland will know that having to take difficult decisions is no new experience. The former Prime Minister, John Major, knew that only too well when he took the decision to begin the engagement that would ultimately lead to the Good Friday agreement. That engagement with the IRA at that time was difficultvery difficult. It was unpalatable to many people, not least in this House, but it was right. And because it was right, it had the support of the then Labour Opposition. John Major and his colleagues, Lord Mayhew, Lord Brooke, and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) paved the way for the Good Friday agreement signed under our Government in 1998. Their role was as crucial as it was courageous. It was attacked and criticised just as our Government are today, but it had the support of the then Labour Opposition.
	The agreement required all sides to compromise and meant taking immensely difficult decisions, not least that on the early release of prisoners, which was completed in 2000. Victims of the troubles were, understandably, in uproar at the sight of murderers or former terrorists walking free, but it was the right thing to do to seal the agreement. However, it left unresolved an equally difficult matter: the issue of what to do about those who had committed terrorist offences before 10 April 1998 and who, had they been in prison at the material time, would have been part of that early-release scheme.
	It is important that the House recalls that this has not suddenly materialised. I remind the House that it was raised with the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in July 2001, but, rightly, was not dealt with then because not enough progress had been made on bringing an end to paramilitary activity. It was raised again in April 2003 in the talks that led to the joint declaration between the British and Irish Governments in May 2003, and a statement for the record was published at that time. It was not dealt with thenagain, rightlybecause not enough progress had been made on bringing an end to paramilitary activity.
	It is not disputed that the IRA statement of 28 July, ending its violent campaign was of great, indeed historic, significance. That statement, with the subsequent decommissioning of the totality of its weaponry, verified   by General de Chastelain's Decommissioning Commission and the two independent clergymen in September, has fundamentally changed the political landscape. So now is the appropriate time to deal with this difficult issue.
	I know that many people will find the Bill very hard to bear. I understand that. If I had not known it before, I was left in no doubt when I attended with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) the annual prison officers' memorial service at Millisle on Remembrance day and spoke to widows of prison officers murdered by the IRA.
	I also spoke to a man who, as a seven-year-old, had seen his dad gunned down next to him more than 20 years ago. I could still feel the pain and misery of a family torn apart. The decent and dignified people to whom I spoke on Remembrance day, together with the thousands of victims of over three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland and beyond, have suffered grievously. That is why one of Mo Mowlam's first actions in 1997 was to ask Sir Ken Bloomfield to look at practical suggestions about how the Government could best recognise the suffering endured by the victims of violence and their families.

Patrick Cormack: Is not the very least that those bruised and wounded people can expect the appearance in a court in person of the murderous thugs who perpetrated that atrocity?

Peter Hain: I understand the powerful arguments that have been made about the matter. We are trying to strike a difficult balance[Interruption.] The House will make its own judgment. It is difficult to strike the right balance. In the end, I decided that it was more important to get more people through the process than would otherwise be the case

Frank Field: Why?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend asks why. The decision was made to get closure not least for the victims[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must let the Secretary of State speak.

Peter Hain: The point that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) rightly made is the first matter that we should consider. It is probably the most sensitive issue in the BillI understand that. There is a question of balance and of whether we can get more people accounted for, brought to justice and convicted, if the evidence justifies that. The victims then have at least the satisfaction that the people who are now on the run outside UK jurisdiction or who might be uncovered by the historic inquiries will be brought to justice.

Iris Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the figures for deaths and for victims who lived but are scarred physically and mentally do not reflect the total number of deaths resulting from the Sinn Fein-IRA campaign of genocide, especially against the Protestant community? Does he accept that many deaths resulted from fathers and mothers with broken hearts and children who committed suicide because they could not face the reality of how their loved ones met their deaths at the hands of those murderous scum?

Peter Hain: Indeed, I do. I fully agree with the hon. Lady. She knows better than me many of the victims and many who felt that life was not worth living after their loved ones were blown up and their lives destroyed. I greatly appreciate that point. As I shall make clear later, the Bill is aimed at bringing closure and an end to the murderous IRA campaign, which the 28 July statement achieved and was confirmed by General de Chastelain's statement on 26 September. The Bill is aimed at ensuring that the armed campaign is over and that there are no future victims of the IRA.

Iris Robinson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. Does he realise that the Bill will bring not closure but more anger and pain, because those people relied on the Government to allow them to see justice done to those who perpetrated the heinous crimes?

Peter Hain: That will happen if people are convicted[Interruption.] There may not be sufficient evidence to convict them, but if they are convicted, they will have a criminal record and have to give DNA and other intimate samples. There will at least be such accounting and closure for the victims.[Interruption.] I understandwe are all in the same boat. [Hon. Members: We are not.] We are[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are conducting a debate and the Secretary of State has a right to put the case before the House and to be heard. If there is so much shouting, I shall suspend the sitting. That is the dangerthat no one else will get an opportunity to speak.

Peter Hain: Although I fully appreciate your point, Mr.   Speaker, I also recognise the strong feelingsindeed, the angerthat the hon. Lady expresses. She knows from first-hand experience, as do many of her colleagues, the suffering that has gone on. All I would say to herI stress that I do not make the point adversariallyis that, at the moment, the people whom the Bill covers are on the run, outside UK jurisdiction. There is the prospectno more but no lessof bringing them into UK jurisdiction and putting them through a process of justice. If the tribunal convicts them, it will mean that they have a criminal record. That should be some comfort to the victims.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State talks about bringing closure. Why does he insult the victims? It is bad enough to introduce the offensive and nauseating Bill, but to say that he is doing it for themhow insulting can the Secretary of State be? Has he not heard the victims say that they do not want this obnoxious Bill? If he had any decency, he would withdraw it immediately.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right[Hon. Members: Withdraw it.] He is right that the Bill is unquestionably hated by victims. I am sure that the RUC widows whom the Prime Minister and I will meet with the hon. Member for North Down this afternoon in Downing street will express the same point of view as the member of the Police Federation.
	My point is that the Bill is about the closure of a dark, awful and murderous terrorist campaign by the IRA. That ought to be of benefit to the victims in the sense that, at the moment, nothing is being done about the people whom we are considering. The on-the-runs are beyond UK jurisdiction and that is no consolation to the victims.

Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will meet some of the victims from the police this afternoon. I hope that he realises just how deep, dark and terrible the cut to the quick of their souls is. Does he appreciate that the Bill is not closure when 202 police officers were murdered and nothing has been done? They were put into what the Chief Constable described as the cold. They were cold cases. No action has been taken over the deaths of loved ones who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the Army. How does the Secretary of State believe that the Bill, which wipes the stone clear, will ever close what is in the hearts, minds and souls of those people?

Peter Hain: Again, the right hon. Gentleman knows more individuals than me who have suffered so grievously. It is not a question of bringing closure to their anguishthat is not possible. I am not presuming to suggest that. I am arguing that this legislation is part of an international agreement with the Irish Republic announced in 2003, and part of a process of bringing to an end this awful murderous activity and terror by the IRAI agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs Robinson), who made clear her views about the IRA.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: Before I take more interventions, which I will be happy to do, I want to inform the House that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and I have between us met representatives of the RUC George Cross Foundation, the RUC George Cross Widows Association, the RUC George Cross Parents Association, the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association. I also met many victims at Millisle on Remembrance day, as I explained earlier. I do not deny that the victims are very angry about this legislation, but the Government sometimes have to take a view on difficult decisions in order to make progress. That is what we have done.

Frank Field: When the Secretary of State says that the Government are seeking closure, does he realise that the House and, probably, many of the victims are actually seeking justice? They are also well aware that the Government are sending out conflicting messages. If someone is a white, murderous Protestant or Catholic terrorist, they might get closure, but we have another message for black Muslim terrorists if they attack us.

Peter Hain: I find that suggestion reprehensible. The problem that my right hon. Friend and others are refusing to face up to is that these people are not being brought to justice now[Hon. Members: Why not?] In the case of the on-the-runs, they are beyond UK jurisdictionand have been for decades, in some cases. In the case of the historic inquiries, we are trying to use the new techniques available, including DNA, to track people down. This includes some of the cases involving murdered police officers rightly mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). We are trying to find out who was responsible for those historic cases, some of which go back almost 40 years, then arrest them and charge them. That will be pursued.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Secretary of State not recognise why people feel so strongly about this? My predecessor in my constituency bears daily the scars of IRA activity. He and his wife, who sits in a wheelchair, had to swallow very hardas did I, and many others who had misgivings about the Good Friday agreementas the Government moved again and again on these issues. But we swallowed. Does he not recognise that the difference now is that he is proposing to give people who ran away from their crime, and who have never been brought to book, the opportunity to avoid that completely? That goes far beyond anything that has happened before. Does he not recognise that people think that this is a grubby and reprehensible move by the Government, and that it is going one step too far?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman made his point very powerfully, and I understand it. I would just make this point in return. He will recall the absolute outcry when the Conservative Government started talking to the IRA. Those early negotiations began a process which this legislation is concludingwhich led to the statement by the IRA on 28 July that no one here ever thought that it would make, namely, that it was giving up its armed, vicious, murderous terrorist campaign. The Bill is part of that process[Interruption.] Well, it is, because it is part of the process agreed with the Irish Government in 2003[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand how strongly hon. Members feel about this matter, but the Minister must be allowed to respond to one intervention at a time.

Peter Hain: The point is that the Bill is part of the process announced in 2003, and part of the process that has led to the historic experience for the people of Northern Ireland of the IRA ending their terrorist war. There will therefore be no Provisional IRA victims in the future, as there have so grievously been in the past.

Mark Durkan: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that the Government had not moved earlier on this legislation because the IRA had not moved sufficiently on decommissioning. Of course, the Bill will benefit not only the IRA but the loyalist paramilitaries, who have made no moves on decommissioning whatever, so where is the logic there? The Secretary of State also suggests that the Bill somehow flows from the Good Friday agreement. Let me remind him that when the agreement was signed, yes, we sold it and promoted it on the basis that there would be prison releases within two years. We were told at the time that the key date for prison releases was after the date for the completion of decommissioning, but the Government then dropped that. We also assured the victims of crimes that had not been solved that their cases would still be pursued, even if it meant that the perpetrators would serve only two years in jail. That is what the victims were told by Ministers and by the parties, and that is why the victims are being betrayed by the Government today.

Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about loyalist paramilitaries. Whether they are on the run or uncovered by the historic investigations, they will of course find themselves the target of this legislation.

Julian Lewis: Has the Secretary of State received any indication from the IRA or its political representatives that they will return to violence if he does not take this further step beyond the agreement?

Peter Hain: No. However, rightly or wronglythe hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is wrong, and I respect that; indeed, that view is being expressed very vehemently today, and I understand thatHer Majesty's Government entered into two agreements that have led to this Bill being introduced. The first was an international agreement with the Irish Government, and that cannot be lightly disregarded. Any responsible Government would have felt that that was the right thing to do to get to where we areand we have got there. Secondly, as part of the negotiations that led to that process and then to the 28 July statement by the IRA, yes, this was one of the factors in those negotiations and an agreement was made there. Yes, this is following the 28 July statement, but it was part of the process that led to this historic change by the IRA, which I know was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member.

Peter Robinson: Why is the Secretary of State attempting to hang his argument on the fact that the Bill affects on-the-runs? The majority of people who will benefit from it ran from no one. It will affect everyone who committed a terrorist crime before 10 April 1998, not just those who are on the run. Will he please explain why there are to be two different standards: one in Dil Eireann and one here in Westminster? In Dil Eireann, the killers of Garda McCabe are not to be brought within the scope of this legislation. Is a garda in the Republic of Ireland more valuable than an RUC man in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: No, of course not. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Irish Government are responsible for bringing to justiceor not, as the case may becases within their own jurisdiction. That case does not fall within UK jurisdiction. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Government have chosen to address this issue by pardoning people. We are not doing that. We are making sure that people are brought to justice. He is right to say that the Bill affects not only those on the run outside UK jurisdiction but, potentially, those who are the subject of the Chief Constable's historic inquiries investigation. That investigation will involve a difficult process, and if it uncovers those who have been responsible for awful atrocities such as that in Enniskillen, for example, they will be arrested, charged and brought to justice. They can choose how to proceed.

William McCrea: I stood in a mortuary and looked into the faceor part of the faceof a young girl, my cousin aged 21 and engaged to be married that day. I then asked to see my other cousin, her brother, aged 16, blown up by the IRA. He was not on a table. There was not enough to put on a table. His earthly remains were lying on the floor in a sheet. I ask the Secretary of State to tell me this: am I to bury justice to appease the murderers, the IRA?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point very movingly, in a way that only he could, given the experience that he has described. I appreciate the emotion with which he made his point, and it is very compelling. Let me say in all good faith, howeverand I accept his right to disagree with me vehementlythat one of the reasons why we were able to achieve an end to the IRA terror campaign and the IRA's statement of 28 July was the agreement that we made with the Irish Government to produce this legislation at the appropriate time.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: This morning on Radio 4, the Secretary of State referred to what he described as political prisoners. We take great offence at that description of terrorists. If the term is to be applied to one set of terrorists, why should it not be applied to all of them?
	Do not the IRA men who murdered Garda Jerry McCabe fall into that category? Are they different from the murderers of RUC officers in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State spoke of an international agreement that he had reached with the Irish Republic. Why do standards differ in the two jurisdictions?
	The Secretary of State said earlier that he had met representatives of the Superintendents Association. Is he aware of the association's view that the Bill is so deeply flawed that it is potentially injurious to the overall administration of the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland and to public confidence therein? If that is the view of police superintendents in Northern Ireland, how can we be expected to support the Bill in the House?

Peter Hain: That view was indeed expressed to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, but not, on that occasion, to me.
	I was not aware that I had used the term political prisoners on the radio. In fact, they are paramilitary prisoners. Let me correct the record for the benefit of the House. As for the way in which the Irish Government choose to treat this matter, we are not in favour of acting in that way in the United Kingdom, within our own jurisdiction. That is why, rather than engaging in a process of pardoning, we are introducing a process whereby although people will not have to serve in prison, if convicted they will be released on licence. If they breach the terms of the licence, they can be rearrested at any time.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the wise words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who has huge experience of these matters, and will he respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention to which he failed to respond earlier? This ill-thought-out and unpleasant legislation does not flow from the Belfast agreement, which many of us supported and for which most people in Northern Ireland voted in a referendum. It flows from deals done at Weston Park in 2001, and there is therefore no reason for it to be supported. It does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland; neither does it have the support of most of those in the House who backed the Belfast agreement.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to the extent that the Bill did not flow from the Belfast agreementthe Good Friday agreement. He said earlier today that it was negotiated well before I started my job. [Interruption.] I am not trying to shift the responsibility; I am merely correcting the record. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the process began at Weston Park in 2001 and was concluded in the joint declaration by the two Governments in 2003.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State spoke of people being released on licence. That will give little comfort to the people of Northern Ireland, who are aware of the despicable way in which he behaved over the imprisonment of one Sean Kelly for breaching his licence conditions. Sean Kelly was released within weeks because the IRA had demanded his release as part of the price for its statement. The licensing provisions therefore do not give the people of Northern Ireland any reassurance. Does the Secretary of State accept that his attempts to defend this obnoxious legislation do not inspire confidence in Members of Parliament or in people outside this place?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sean Kelly. That was a unique situation.

Nigel Dodds: The next one will be as well.

Peter Hain: That case was unique in that about six weeks after I had had Sean Kelly arrestedI was widely attacked for doing that, but it was the right thing to doit was clear that the IRA had given up its terrorist campaign, as it was due to announce the next day, and that he had signed up to that. The situation was entirely different. I had Sean Kelly arrested because I was told by the Chief Constable that he was engaging in activity that constituted a breach of his licence.
	The point I am making is that, under the Bill, anyone with a conviction who is released on licence and who breaches the terms of that licence can be hauled back. That cannot happen at present because such people are outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction.

Lady Hermon: The Secretary of State has referred seven times to two agreementsan agreement between the Irish and British Governments and an agreement between the British Government and Sinn Fein. Was it agreed with Sinn Fein that these criminalsthese murdererswould never stand in a court of law? Was it agreed that they would never have to appear before any tribunal? Was that agreed by our Prime Minister?

Peter Hain: A whole process of negotiation led to this position, but the hon. Lady is right to say that the Bill originated in the negotiations of 2001 and 2003.

Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State has neither logic nor justice on his side, and as he is clearly deeply uncomfortable with the case that he is having to put to the House, why can he not accept the offer made to him on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which suggested that the Bill be referred for pre-legislative scrutiny? It cannot by any stretch of anyone's imagination be described as emergency legislation. Why can we not have time to take evidence and decide on the best way to deal with a problem that we acknowledge exists? Why does the Secretary of State persist with this tawdry measure, which is not worthy of him?

Peter Hain: In all fairness, the hon. Gentleman did make that point to me when I gave evidence to his Committee a few weeks ago. Let me repeat what I said then. Pre-legislative scrutiny is an admirable process, initiated by this Government and by me and supported by me, but it cannot be applied to every Bill. This Bill is being introduced at this time as part of a sequence of events negotiated by both Governments some years ago. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, as do many others, but we are fulfillingI am fulfillingan agreement made with the Irish Government and others.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend has already described the Bill as unpalatable, which I think is parliamentary language meaning that itis abhorrent to many people because of the repercussions for victims. Some Labour Members may not be in a position to understand that, but we entirely understand where the Opposition are coming from.
	Given what my right hon. Friend has said about the balance to be achieved, the Bill may be unavoidable. However, to reassure people that there is at least some justice in it, will he keep an open mind on the issue of appearance in court, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? He may agree with me that people would have a greater sense of justice if they saw the individuals involved standing in the courts.

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which was also expressed powerfully by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. The Bill has a long way to go in order to complete its passage and we shall listen carefully to the arguments, but for reasons that I have explained the Bill provides that people will not have to appear in court. It was a difficult balance to strike, but it is the balance that we struck.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State sprinkled the term justice throughout his speech. He is not prepared to make certain people accede to a request to appear before a courtI ignore all the other measures in the Bill that do not require the perpetrator of a crime to appear or co-operate in any wayyet he is prepared to give them a licence, which, as we have heard, he can throw out against police advice at some later date. Will he explain how that can be viewed as justice, and, if it is justice, what comfort is there in it? The victim does not see the perpetrator and the perpetrators do not have to appear, so where is the comfort for the victim?

Peter Hain: If individuals who appear before the special court are convictedthe hon. Gentleman will understand that that will depend on the evidencethey will have a criminal record. [Interruption.] That is the point that I am making about a system of justice.
	Let me also deal with the point about comfort. As I have said, I understand the anger of victims, but there is no comfort for them at all under present circumstances in which many of the people likely to come through the process are outside UK jurisdiction and evading justice. They will continue to evade justice, as far as anyone can see, for ever. Compared with that position[Interruption.] They are evading justice, so the Bill represents an improvement, in my view, because those involved are brought through a proper process.

Lorely Burt: Was the commitment for defendants not to have to appear in court given in writing to the IRA? If victims can be subpoenaed to appear in court, while the perpetrator can be sitting in a pub down the road waiting for the result, how can the court achieve a fair and just result? If the perpetrator cannot even be questioned, how can the court get to the bottom of the matter and achieve a result that is fair and just? Will the Secretary of State explain that?

Peter Hain: Some in absentia trials do occur, but I recognise the hon. Lady's point. Defendants might well choose to appear before the special court because they do not want the sentence that would result from the conviction. I repeat the point that I made and reconfirm that no assurance was given in writing to the IRA about this specific matter[Interruption.] Of course no such written assurance was given.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I face an abundance of hon. Members wanting to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: A number of British soldiers have faced difficulties in regard to acts that they may have committed as a matter of duty under military law. Are some of those soldiers who have been convicted to be given pardons? It is outrageous that terrorists should get away with it, while soldiers who performed their duties under military law should be treated in that way.

Peter Hain: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me earlier. In framing the final details of the Bill, I faced a choice. The original draft did not apply to members of the security forces at all. I took the view that, leaving aside the question of whether the Bill is right or wrong in principleclearly, the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues oppose itif we were to proceed with legislation that we believed to be essential, it would be entirely wrong for members of the security forces in the course of their duty to find themselves[Interruption.]

Ben Wallace: rose

Peter Hain: I would like to finish the point and give the hon. Member for Stone the courtesy of replying to his question.
	Members of the security forces may have committed a criminal offence in the course of their duty: it has happened in a handful of cases and who knows what might be uncovered in the future? For them to find themselves serving a prison sentence when members of the IRA and loyalist terrorists could be walking free would, I thought, be entirely wrong. That is why I gave members of the security forcesincluding, in principle, serving soldiers nowthe choice of availing themselves of the special procedure. If they found themselves chargedand only if they found themselves chargedwith a crime uncovered as a result of historic inquiries, I felt that it would discriminate against them in comparison with the IRA or loyalist terrorists to deny them the opportunity of taking advantage of the provisions.

Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State repeatedly used the word closure, and subsequently made it clear that it has nothing to do with the victims, but apparently with violence. Will he explain how allowing those who are genuinely on the run abroad to come back to the UK to send a text message to the Secretary of State's wretched commissionerthat is virtually all that they have to dowill somehow make it safer for people who live perhaps in the very street to which those people return to live?

Peter Hain: If they come back, they will initially apply to the commissioner. If they return to Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK after the commissioner has issued a certificatethe contents of the certificate are determined not by the on-the-run suspect, but by the Police Service of Northern Irelandthey will be arrested. It is a matter for the policeit is not a question of simply texting something and appearing the next day in the Falls roadand there is a proper judicial process to go through.

Mark Francois: May I offer my personal condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), with whom I was at university for three years?
	The Secretary of State is well aware of the scepticism among some elements of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland about the detailed implementation of aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Everyone knows that. However, the Bill goes beyond that agreement. How will confidence be improved among the Protestant community, most of whom will see this grubby little Bill for exactly what it isa capitulation to Adams and McGuinness?

Peter Hain: The Good Friday agreement[Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), for whom I have a great deal of admiration, should realise that it is not a question of not caring. I really do not accept that. It is a matter of the Government taking responsibility to bring closure not to the victims' anguishthat can never be donebut to the IRA terrorist campaign, which we have now succeeded in doing under the 28 July agreement. The Good Friday agreement started that process, but it did not conclude it. One of the reasons for introducing the Bill is as part of an agreement that did conclude that process.
	Let me say, in all fairness, to right hon. and hon. Members that this legislation isas the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, the Chairman of the Select Committee, reminded meextremely difficult. I understand that and I appreciate the strong feelings involved, the anguish of the victims and the anger felt among elected Members of Parliament of all parties in Northern Ireland. I appreciate all that, but to reach a position in which the IRA has ended its vicious war and terrorist campaign required us to introduce, among other things, the Bill before us. That is the reason for introducing the Bill[Interruption.] I would also suggest, however much it might be denied, that any responsible Governmentincluding a Conservative Governmentwho had reached the point of persuading, forcing and cajoling the IRA to give up its terrorist campaign would have faced exactly the same circumstances that I now face.

Alistair Carmichael: The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to get off with the pretence that Weston Park somehow concluded the business of the Good Friday agreement. The distinction is that the Good Friday agreement involved the agreement of all parties, whereas Weston Park involved that of only two. If the Government have made certain undertakings that are not in their power to deliver, they cannot now seek to get our imprimatur for those agreements.

Peter Hain: For the historical record, the hon. Gentleman must know that one of the reasons the Democratic Unionist party opposed the Good Friday agreement was that it did not bring closure to the IRA's terrorist campaign. We have now done that. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can go back to the history and form their own judgments, but the agreement did not achieve that closure. The Bill is part of a commitment to make sure that we have delivered an end to that murderous and terrible campaign.
	I have been taking interventions for quite a long time now. I need to make some progress, but first I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State continues to say that the Bill is about the IRA, not the victims. Supposedly, the IRA has said that the war is over, so why are we introducing this Bill? Is my right hon. Friend saying that if Parliament turns down the shoddy little agreement that the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA have signed up to, the IRA will say that the war is on again?

Peter Hain: No, I am not saying that. In fact, I expressly did not do so.

Nigel Dodds: Why introduce the Bill then?

Peter Hain: Why? It is because we made an agreement to do so. [Hon. Members: Oh!] Indeed, and the agreement was with the Irish Government.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: No, not for the moment, as I am trying to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. She and other hon. Members may say that we should not have made that agreement, but without it there would have been no guarantee of an historic end to the IRA's campaign. That is the point.

Nigel Dodds: Blackmail!

Peter Hain: It is not blackmail. To get to the end of a conflict as ancient and bitter as the one in Northern Ireland, which has caused

Nigel Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before and will do so again, but I think that I have the right at least to make my case in answer to the question.
	If it had not been ended, that historic and murderous terrorist campaign would have created even more victims in the future. That is the point, and the Government have taken a tough and difficult decision.

Nigel Dodds: Shameful!

Peter Hain: I started taking interventions some half an hour or more ago, at which time I was explaining that Mo Mowlam started the process by acknowledging that victims had suffered grievously during the Northern Ireland conflict. We all know that, in many respects, their cases had been appallingly neglected for decades, by all Governments. That is why she brought victims' issues to the heart of Government with the creation of the world's first Minister for victims. That is why the memorial fund was set up, and why we have recently provided it with a further 1.5 million. It is also why Her   Majesty the Queen recognised the valour and sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with the George Cross, and today marks the fifth anniversary of that award. Without those officers' sacrifice, the dramatic improvements in the security situation evident today could not have come about.
	It is also why I have appointed Northern Ireland's first victims' commissioner, Mrs. Bertha McDougall. She is the widow of an RUC officer who, in addition to other tasks, will prepare the ground for a victims and survivors forum.
	I have met many victims of the troubles since taking up this job, some with most horrific stories of loss, pain and continued suffering. Quite properly, those stories have been brought to Members' attention by members of the Democratic Unionist party in particular. I would not presume for one second to tell any victim that they must draw a line under the past. I cannot, and would not, tell anyone who has suffered such a unique and personal loss that they must close a door on their pain and move on.
	There are times, however, when a Government must take a view on the best way for society as a whole to move on, so as to get closure on the past, difficult as that may be. This is one such time.
	The Government are trying, in all good faith, to bring about what the agreement itself described as the
	true memorial to the victims of violence
	that is, a peaceful and just society in Northern Ireland in the future.
	I recognise entirely the difficulty of this step. If I had not done so already, that difficulty has been made very clear in the debate. However, I believe that it is necessary, as do others who have been involved in the Northern Ireland peace process.
	For example, I met the former Taoiseach, John Bruton, in Washington last week. He is well known to many hon. Members, and much respected for his unswerving stand against terrorism in Ireland. He has given me permission to inform the House of what he told me. He said that he regards this Bill as a painful but necessary step towards completing the translation from the years of pain and conflict. I agree exactly with those sentiments.

David Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Ben Wallace: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I need to make some progress, and then will give way again.
	The Government believe that, if Northern Ireland is finally to move out of the conflict that has scarred the past four decades, we have to deal with this outstanding issue left unresolved by the 1998 agreement. That is what the Bill does.
	Even before this Bill was introduced, there was much talk of amnesty. This is no such thing. Under this Bill, individuals could be tried, sentenced and subject to recall to prison for their crimes if they broke the conditions imposed on them. That is not an amnesty.
	The House should be under no illusion. The choice is stark: either many of these people continue to run free, never having to account for their crimes, or we put them through these special procedures to face the possibility of conviction.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I will, in time.
	The choice in many cases is between failing to bring the people involved to justice at alleffectively doing nothing about themand these special procedures. That is the choice, and the Bill makes it clear that what is proposed is not an amnesty.
	The Bill sets out a two-stage process. The first stage is an eligibility process, and the second a judicial process. Clause 1 sets out the offences to which the legislation will apply. They are offences committed before the Belfast agreement in connection with Northern Ireland, including offences committed in any part of the UK, escapes and offences committed by members of the security forces.
	The Government were mindful

Nigel Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ben Wallace: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I shall finish this point, and then take an intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast, North. The Government were mindful of the need to ensure that members of the security forces and the police who may have committed acts of unlawful violence before the Good Friday agreement are not disadvantaged. It is not a question of treating them as equivalent to terrorists, but of making sure that they suffer no discrimination. It would be totally unjust and offensive if they were to face imprisonment while former terrorists did not.
	Provided that they meet the criteria set out in the Bill, members and former members of the security forces and the police will be covered by this legislation. I do not expect more than a handful, if that, of such people to be affected, and remind the House that only a handful have been affected by prosecutions in the past.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will have noted the deep anger caused by putting members of the security forces and the police on an equivalent basis with terrorists. That is absolutely outrageous. On a number of occasions, he has said that the choice is between allowing people to go free and putting them through the process that he has outlined. However, is not the reality that there is no question of putting them through any process? The matter is entirely voluntary. If people are approached by the police with evidence, they are not required to confess their crime, or to do so within any particular time limit. The provision amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card that they can keep in their back pockets until such time as the police come looking for them. No choice is involved at all. Will the Secretary of State deal with that?

Peter Hain: It is a matter of choice, and we can explore the question of time limits in greater detail as the Bill progresses through the House.

David Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: No, as I am answering the hon. Member for Belfast, North.
	The problem of time limits was considered when we drafted the Bill. The practical difficulty is determining how long such a limit should be. What is the sensible period? We want the process to be carried forward, but at the same time we must make sure that it does not go on for ever. As the hon. Member for Belfast, North knows, the Bill gives me powers to end the process at any time.
	I want to make one other point in response to the hon. Gentleman. It is a stark choice in the sense that at present the people on the run, outside UK jurisdiction, have no incentive to come back and face justice, and get a criminal record, which many of them would do.

Iris Robinson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way to me a third time. Does he understand that the people of Northern Ireland cannot trust the word of this Government? Our Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland in 1998 and promised that there would be no terrorists in government and no prisoners released unless and until decommissioning was resolved. In the last election, the Democratic Unionist party received more than 231,000 votes, which indicates that the Protestant community in Northern Ireland oppose the Belfast agreement. It is about time that the Government realised that they do not have the Belfast agreement to follow.

Peter Hain: I acknowledged that the hon. Lady's party, for reasons stated at the time and repeated since, opposed the Good Friday agreement.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State referred to the ongoing historic inquiries, and I presume that he includes the Saville inquiry. He will recall that the greatest loss of life suffered in Northern Ireland was experienced by the Parachute Regiment at Narrowater Castle, near Warrenpoint. No one has ever been brought to justice for the murders of those soldiers. Indeed, the perpetrators of that atrocity can avail themselves of the facility that the Secretary of State proposes. However, the absurd position is that if members of the Parachute Regiment are charged as a result of the Saville inquiry, they can clear their names only by going through the full judicial process, because one has to plead guilty to benefit from this system. They will face the full rigour of the law if they want to clear their names, but those who murdered the paratroopers at Narrowater will walk away scot-free.

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but that is factually incorrect. First, if the individuals responsible for Warrenpoint are identified, arrested and prosecuted as a result of the Chief Constable's historic inquiries investigation, it is only the first stage. They cannot opt to enter this process until they have been arrested and charged and, in that sense, brought to justice[Interruption.] I have dealt with that point. It is true that they can then elect to go through this special procedure, following which they may be convicted and get a criminal record. That is one set of circumstances.
	I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has sought clarification because he is not correct about the possible position for former paratroopers. I do not know whether any will be affected by the Bill. At the moment, before the Bill is enacted, if an individual were identified by the Saville inquiry, he would face a normal criminal trial, if the police arrested and prosecuted him, and a sentence would follow conviction. When the Bill is in place, the person could choosethe Government would not force him and, indeed, the Bill will not force anyone to do anythingto go through the special court process and could end up, yes, with a conviction, but able to take advantage of the licence system and walk away. In that sense, the person would be advantaged by the legislation or, at least, not disadvantaged compared with former terrorists.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the tribunal system would give the former members of the Parachute Regiment who may face charges under the Saville inquiry the opportunity to clear their names? Will they receive proper justice under this system?

Peter Hain: Indeed it will. They could plead not guilty. As a result of the Saville inquiry, if any soldiers are charged with a serious offenceeven murderthey could plead not guilty and choose to go through the special process

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has raised an important point and I am glad that he seeks clarification of it from me. The soldiers could choose to take advantage of what for them could be a beneficial process[Interruption.] It could be beneficial for them, because otherwise they would go through the normal court process and possibly be convicted and serve a sentence. It would be a beneficial process. They could still plead not guilty and the evidence would have to stack up before they could be convicted. It is the same Crown court-type procedure in the special courts as the alternative route.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, because the specific example of Bloody Sunday that he is using occurred in my constituency. Obviously, much of the Saville inquiry also took place in Derry. Will he further confirm that if paratroopers who might face charges as a result of the Saville inquiry elect to use this process, they would not have to appear in court at any stage? On the basis of the controls and limits that the Secretary of State will have power to put on the information disclosed, their names might never have to be heard by anyone and other pieces of information about their case could be suppressed. Will the Secretary of State clarify that provision?

Peter Hain: I know the sensitivity in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the city of Derry about this matter[Hon. Members: Londonderry.] Well, it depends on which side of the community one sits. I call it both in order to take matters forward[Interruption.] To clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I say to him that he is right. The paratroopers who faced that situation, if any, would be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else going through the special tribunal court process.

Julian Lewis: As I understand it, the Secretary of State is saying that if a former serving soldier were charged and chose to try and resist acknowledging guilt, and opted to go through the whole judicial process, he might clear his name, but he could be found guilty. If he were found guilty, could he then use the new procedure to walk free? If he could not, he would in a sense have been blackmailed to accept a false rap and plead guilty in advance so that he could use the new procedure.

Peter Hain: I thought that I had explained the position very clearly, but I am happy to clarify it again for the hon. Gentleman, because it is an important matter for him and, I suspect, for the whole House. It is certainly very important to me. The paratrooper, or any other member of the armed forces, would face a choice. He could plead not guilty or guilty to the charge. Let us say that the Saville inquiry identifies an individual, who is then the subject of investigation by the police, arrested, charged and faces prosecution. He can then choose. Normally, he would go through the existing criminal justice systemthe normal Crown court route. He could plead his innocence throughout, but if convicted he could, in principle, serve a very long prison sentence. I took a deliberate decisionI need not have done soto avail a soldier in that position of the option of the special process, which could leave him with a conviction, but still pleading his innocence, and with release on licence, so that he did not have to serve the sentence.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate the Secretary of State on giving way so much. I know that the whole House appreciates it. In answer to his most recent example, the big difference, which he does not seem to have spotted, is that no soldiers asked to go to Northern Ireland. They went because their Government sent them to hold the peace. Therefore, it is reprehensible to treat them on the same basis as terrorists who ran from their crimes.
	The Secretary of State touched on an important issue. After all the interventions he has taken, he seems to have slid into a position where it is almost clear that he is saying that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement and never was officially. However, is it now not clear that at the time of the Good Friday agreement and afterwards, through third partiespossibly the Irish Governmentthe Government gave a nod and a wink to Sinn Fein-IRA that when the end point of the agreement process was reached, they would get this new system if they kept their noses clean? The Government never said that at the time of the Good Friday agreement because they knew that it would never have been accepted in Northern Ireland or backed by all parties.

Peter Hain: It is not a question of evading issues at the time of the Good Friday agreement. This is an unresolved issue, which the right hon. Gentleman, too, would face if he were serving as a member of a Conservative Cabinet at this time, and it will always remain an unresolved issue. He is absolutely right: it was not resolved under the Good Friday agreement. I said that freely earlier on. Where the right hon. Gentleman is not right, however, is that it was not smuggled in at the last minute. It was a matter of public knowledge, published in May 2003; the House was informed about it and all the detail was there.

Andrew Robathan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I want to respond to the first point made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith).
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the legislation, but is he advocating that it would be right for a member of the security forces perhaps to serve a long prison sentence while a former terrorist walked free? Is he saying that that is what should happen?

Iain Duncan Smith: What I am saying to the Secretary of State is clear: the legislation is wrong for everybody. He should have looked back at what the Saville inquiry is doing and recognised that it is attacking the very people who went to Northern Ireland at the behest of the Government but are now being treated as criminals. That, as well as the legislation, is wrong.

Peter Hain: I understand and respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the legislation and that he will vote against it. Of course he will. But I find it absolutely extraordinary, particularly as he is a former Defence spokesman for the Conservative party, that he could put members of our armed forcesperhaps serving membersin a position where they were discriminated against compared with former terrorists[Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I have been on my feet for an hour and 10 minutes[Hon. Members: Give way.] I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State has accused me of something that is reprehensible. As someone who actually served in Northern Ireland and is proud to have done so, I take no lessons from him and nor does my party. I am absolutely opposed to the proposed process and I do not think it right for the Secretary of State to use British soldiers as a shield in defence of what is wrong. That is what is wrong with the legislation.

Peter Hain: I acknowledge the role that the right hon. Gentleman played and the House will of course want to pay tribute to that. I am not using the measure as a shield for anything. If the legislation is passed by Parliament, as I hope it will be, and as the Government believe, as part of their commitments it should be, and notwithstanding the fact that a large number of Members will vote against it, I think it would be wrong for members of the security forces, many of whom, like the right hon. Gentleman, served with great valour in the most horrific circumstances in Northern Ireland, who were ever faced with a situation in which they were a bad appleand it has never been suggested that more than a handful might beto have to serve a full prison sentence while former terrorists walked free.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I need to make some more progress. There are strong feelings about the Bill and I have been happy to take interventions, but I need to set out the case for the measure.

Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: No, I am sorry.
	Clauses 2 to 6 provide for an eligibility process, conducted by a certification commissioner. Provisions governing the commissioner are set out in schedule 1. The eligibility procedure will ensure that access to the scheme will be restricted to specific categories of suspect. They include those colloquially known as on-the-runsOTRs. It also includes people charged with relevant offences during the lifetime of the scheme; for instance, people whose crimes are uncovered as a result of the police historic inquiries work.
	The Bill sets out criteria which must be met, and must continue to be met, for the person to hold a certificate. The criteria refer to the person's connection to terrorism and criminality. The certificate will apply only to offences connected to the person by the police and the offences will be listed on the certificate. Certificates can be cancelled if their terms are broken. The certification commissioner will also have a duty to keep victims informedthis is importantas far as possible with the progress of cases. We believe that it is crucial to ensure that the needs of victims are not neglected in the scheme.
	Clauses 7 to 11 set out the effects of the certificate. The certificate will grant the person exemptions from certain powers, including arrest, detention, questioning and remand. The exemptions apply only to the offences listed on the certificate, as determined by the police.

Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way, but he has heard the unanimity of view on both sides of the House, so will he give an undertaking to accept an amendment, which I will table, so that people appear in open court before a judgenot a retired oneto answer for their crimes? Will he accept such an amendment?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge the strength of feeling in the House. That is why I have accepted interventions. I cannot anticipate what amendments will be tabled. We shall have to see them, and they will be debated in the normal way.
	Any prosecution for a certified offence will take place in a special tribunal set up under the legislation. Detailed provisions are set out in schedule 2. The special tribunal will have all the powers, authorities and jurisdiction of the Crown court sitting without a jury. The defendant will not have to attend the trial, but otherwise the trial will follow traditional procedures.
	In the event of a conviction, the person will receive a licence, subject to certain conditions.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: No, I need to make progress.
	A person given a life sentence will not be granted a licence if he is deemed to be a danger to the public. No licence can be granted until the person has provided the necessary fingerprints and non-intimate samples. If licence conditions are broken, the licence can be suspended. The person must then begin to serve their sentence in prison. The case is then passed to the appeals commissioners, who will take the decision to confirm or revoke the licence. If the licence is revoked, the person will remain in prison to serve his or her sentence.
	Clauses 12 to 17 set out the routes of appeal for decisions made in the scheme. Challenges at the certification stage will go to specially appointed appeals commissioners. The terms of those commissioners and the procedure they will follow are set out in schedules 3 and 4.
	Conviction and sentence before the special tribunal may be appealed before a special appeals tribunal, also established by the legislation. The special appeals tribunal will attract to itself all the powers of the Court of Appeal, and detailed provision is set out in schedule 5.

Peter Robinson: The United Kingdom has obligations under several human rights conventions. Under the United Nations convention against torture, the Government have a responsibility to prosecute those responsible for torture. Will the Secretary of State have the Bill amended to ensure that that obligation is in it?

Peter Hain: The issue has been raised with us and we are looking into it, but as I said, the Bill is in full compliance with human rights legislation.

Lady Hermon: I assume that the Secretary of State occasionally speaks and listens to the Home Secretaryat least I hope he does. The Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor invariably tell the House and another place that we must make every effort to instil public confidence in the criminal justice system. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how the dreadful procedure set out in the Bill can in any way enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: The name of the Home Secretary appears on the Bill as one of its sponsors, along with my name.
	Clause 18 establishes the special prosecutor, who will bring prosecutions in the special tribunal. The special prosecutor will also have responsibility for liaising with victims to ensure that they are properly informed of the progress of cases that reach that stage. Further details are in schedule 6.
	Clauses 19 to 27 contain ancillary provisions, which include protections for information provided to the certification commissioner and the power to suspend and repeal provisions of the scheme. Of course, I would prefer it if the normal processes of the criminal law could be applied in all those cases, but those who are outside Northern Ireland will not return on that basis.

Andrew Turner: The Secretary of State will appreciate that he is proposing a new but parallel system, which he may describe as justice, for the people who apply for those certificates. I do not understand why, if the system is as good, they will not be taken before the normal courts, allowed to appeal to the normal Court of Appeal and prosecuted by the normal prosecutors. Why is that?

Peter Hain: I can explain very simply why. I do not want this process to jam up the existing courts. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that it would be rightand I do not think that the citizens of Northern Ireland think that it would be rightto obstruct the timing and momentum of the normal criminal proceedings that are going through our Crown courts, possibly including cases following the Good Friday agreement. That is why we set up the parallel procedure.

Andrew Robathan: rose

Nigel Dodds: rose

Peter Hain: I am sorry; I need to make some progress.
	Those who may be suspected in the future may well abscond if criminal proceedings were initiated against them, leaving both groups beyond the reach of the criminal process altogether and victims haunted by the fact that they will never be confronted by the justice process for their crimes. In this context, the work of the historical inquiries teamthe cold case reviewis important. There will be those who say that they will be denied justice if someone charged and convicted does not serve a prison sentenceI understand thatbut I hope that the House takes note of the fact that there will be others who will want to find out as much as possible about what happened to their loved ones, and if the review of cases helps to bring them nearer to closure, it is worth doing.

Nigel Dodds: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the special procedure, the defendant does not have to turn up, that it may well be that their details will not be made known to anyonethe anonymity provisions can applyand that they will be able to get to legal aid as well? So the defendant will not have to turn up and will be anonymous, but can he confirm whether they can get legal aid to fight those cases?

Peter Hain: If people are eligible for legal aid, of course, they will get legal aid, but they must be eligible for it. I have already explained the processes involved in the procedure[Interruption.] I repeat that there is no prospect at all of bringing on-the-runs to justice if we do not proceed with the process.
	In an intervention in the recent debate on the renewal of aspects of the prevention of terrorism legislation, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said:
	Either things are not good in Northern Ireland or else things are good in Northern Ireland[Official Report, 31 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 630.]
	He suggests that it is a case of paradise or perdition. I do not agree with that stark either/or analysis. Things are immensely better in Northern Ireland than they werenobody contests thatbut, of course, that is not good enough.
	The reality is that we are coming to the end of a long period of transition in Northern Ireland that began with the ceasefires of the early 1990s and the negotiations conducted, including with the IRA, by the then Conservative Government. However, we will only get to that end once all the outstanding issues are resolved: the issue that we are discussing today; Sinn Fein's unequivocal endorsement and support for policing arrangements; an end to all paramilitary activity and criminality, by all paramilitary groupsthe UDA, UVF, LVF and the dissident republicans included. Then stable and inclusive institutions can be restored and the promise of the agreement can be realised.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State has today placed in the Library a written statement confirming that he has changed the nature of the inquiry into the murder of Billy Wright in the Maze prison. Can he give an absolute assurance to the House that, as a result of the change in the nature of that inquiry, no information will be withheld from the inquiry by his office and that those involved will not seek to shelter behind the provision of the new legislation to prevent information and evidence from being provided to the inquiry to enable it to reach a conclusion?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and seeking clarification. He brought Billy Wright's father, David Wright, with him to see me, and I was able to hear Mr. Wright's views that he did not want the inquiry converted as Lord MacLean, the presiding judge, has requested of me. I looked into this in great detail and sought to take careful account of all the relevant factors and to arrive at a reasoned decision. David Wright has suffered grievouslyhe is another victimand I was very impressed with the strength of his conviction and his demeanour at that meeting.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Wright will be reassured by the fact that Lord MacLean and I strongly share their wish that the full facts in relation to the murder of Billy Wright should be established. It is Lord MacLean's belief that the conversion is necessary for the inquiry to be as thorough and effective as possible. He will do all that he can to ensure that the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. David Wright and the family about the conduct of the inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 are addressed.
	I, too, am only interested in finding out the truth about what happened. I can promise the hon. Gentleman and, through him, David Wright that the Government will fully co-operate with the inquiry. We will not seek to limit its scope or to withhold material from it. I can also assure him that I have no present intention to issue a restriction notice with regard to the Billy Wright inquiry.
	The decision to propose the Bill was not taken lightly. I therefore commend it to the House not with a spring in my step, but because I firmly believe that it is an absolutely essential part of the process of Northern Ireland not being trapped in a past of horror and violence, but looking to a future where there are no victims any more, where every child has the best start and every citizen can walk out from under the shadow of fear, intimidation and brutality.

David Lidington: I beg to move, To leave out from That to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill because it creates an amnesty for terrorist fugitives from justice; because it allows such fugitives to return to Northern Ireland without ever being arrested or questioned by the police about their alleged offences; because it proposes a quasi-judicial process in which those accused of perpetrating terrorist offences will never have to appear before a court or spend any time in custody; because it allows an indefinite period of time for terrorists to take advantage of this procedure; because it treats members of the Armed Forces and the police on a par with terrorists; because it fails to contain an obligation on terrorist organisations to allow the safe return to Northern Ireland of those they have exiled; and because it places the rights of those suspected of serious offences before those of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
	I join the Secretary of State in offering heartfelt condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). I am sure he will know that he has many friends. He is held in great affection on both sides of the House, and the thoughts and prayers of all hon. Members will be with him today.
	The Secretary of State presented his case in a measured fashion. It seems to me that his case rests on two propositions. First, we have a choice between, as he put it, allowing criminals to run free, or putting them through the special procedures created by the Bill. One has only to ponder briefly and imagine any Minister of any Government of any possible political persuasion applying that argument to any other category of criminal to see just how flimsy that ground is. The second argument that the Secretary of State put forward is that the measure, however unpalatable, is needed for Northern Ireland to achieve closure and to put a dark and violent past behind it.
	I am happy to pay tribute to the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessors in office and the Prime Minister have made over the years to bring peace and normality to the suffering people of Northern Ireland, but I have to say that I do not believe that the Bill will attain the objective that he wants. The Bill is wrong. It is unjust, it undermines the rule of law and it betrays utterly the interests of the victims of terrorism. The House is being invited to offerhowever much we dress it upwhat amounts to an amnesty or a pardon to men and women who include those responsible for some of the worst atrocities of a 30-year campaign of terrorism in Northern Ireland and beyond.

Peter Hain: May I take the hon. Gentleman up on that point? I welcome the basis on which he is making his speech, except for that point. A pardon or an amnesty would mean that people would just be given a bit of paper and would never have to account for their crimes or terrorist atrocities. These people could face conviction and have a criminal record, and could be hauled in if they misbehaved in the future. That cannot, by any definition, be a pardon or an amnesty.

David Lidington: As I hope to explain later in my speech, one of the problems that I have with the Bill is the fact that it sets aside due process and the normal rule of law. It shuts out the courts from consideration of these cases. It will certainly make it much more difficult than it should be to hold these criminals to account in public for what they have done.
	The Bill offers that amnesty to people who have never owned up for what they did, who have never had to stand in court to hear evidence against them and who, in most cases, have never served one day in prison for their crimes. It is important for every Member of the Houseirrespective of how we intend to vote tonightto reflect carefully on, and have in their minds, the sort of crimes about which we are talking. It is sometimes too easy for those of us who represent constituencies in Great Britain to think that the experience of people in Northern Ireland is different because it is no longer in the headlines and is thus in the past and forgotten. Let me give just three examples of cases, the perpetrators of which might stand to benefit from the scheme embodied in the Bill.
	In 1976, in Kingsmill, County Armagh, a minibus carrying 10 textile workers home from their local factory was stopped at gunpoint. The men were ordered out and they were shot down in the road with at least four different automatic weapons.
	In 1987, in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, a bomb exploded on Remembrance Sunday. It was timed for just before 11 am. Eleven people died and 63 were injured. No warning whatever was given.
	In 1992, in Teebane, County Tyrone, an IRA land mine killed eight building workers who were travelling in a minibus on their way home. It maimed six others. Just seconds before the explosion, a bus filled with schoolgirls had passed over the same spot.
	The House needs to understand that the sense of horror felt in Northern Ireland was just as deep after those outrages, and the grief of widows and children was just as heartfelt, as anything that we experienced here in London in July, or that we saw, tragically, in Bradford last weekend. The Bill is not a mere tidying-up exercise, or a minor piece of unfinished business. As hon. Members' interventions have already demonstrated and as, to be fair, the Secretary of State has publicly acknowledged, it gives rise to real passion, anger and heartache.
	I want to address the various arguments that have been used to justify the Bill, but first let me make it clear that I draw no comfort from the Government's assurance that the Bill could apply to soldiers and police officers as much as to terrorists. It is a form of logic that amounts to casuistry to defend a measure that has been contrived to deliver a deal between the Government and IRA-Sinn Fein on the grounds that the special arrangements will also be opened up to soldiers and police officers. Like my hon. FriendsI feel somewhat humble speaking in the presence of those who have served in the armed forces on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland to defend them against terrorismI find it morally repugnant that we are being asked to approve a Bill that treats agents of the Crown on a par with brutal and ruthless terrorists.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and sympathise with it in many respects. However, will he table an amendment to the Bill to remove[Interruption.] No, I want the hon. Gentleman to answer this specific question: will he try to ensure that if members of the security forces are chargedand only if they are chargedthey will not be able to avail themselves of the special court procedure? Is that his party's policy?

David Lidington: I put to the Secretary of State what members of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland said to me when I met them last week; I am sure that they have said the same thing to him. They said that they believed that the Bill was unjustified in principle, and that if there were compelling evidence against an individual police officerwhether that derived from the Stevens inquiry or another sourcethat police officer should expect to face charges and appear in open court like anyone else. I and my predecessors with my responsibilities have argued consistently for that throughout all the debates about collusion and related inquiries.

Peter Hain: I understand both that point and the hon. Gentleman's point of principle in objecting to the Bill. He will vote against the Bill. However, is he saying that if Parliament passes the BillI respect the fact that it will be vigorously opposed at every stage, including by himhe will have wanted his party to have moved an amendment to remove the option for members of the security forces to go through the procedure?

David Lidington: As the Secretary of State said himself, we will deal with amendments in Committee and on Report. I agree with the view expressed to me forcefully by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: As this shameful Bill is a concession to the IRA, as the Saville inquiry has been a concession to the IRA and as the start-up of investigations into past cases involving soldiers will be a concession to the IRA, does my hon. Friend think it is likely that the operations in Gibraltar and Loughgall, for example, will be investigated with the backing of the Government? That might lead to charges against, and perhaps the conviction of, serving officers, some of whom will be senior officers, as a concession to the IRA. If those people received criminal convictions, they would have to give up their jobs.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend speaks with his experience of service in the Army. It is obviously for the Governmentwhether in the person of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Defenceto explain what they plan to do about investigations into allegations against members or former members of the armed forces. I hope that the Government will bear in mind the worry expressed in July in the House of Lords by the most recently serving Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce. He described the armed forces as under legal siege, and said that the legal challenges and investigations already under way were
	generating real risk-averseness, clouding good military judgment.[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]

Alistair Carmichael: Is not the answer to the logical knots in which the Secretary of State ties himself that, instead of putting soldiers into the special tribunal, we put terrorists into the courts? If there is to be a process involving guilty or not guilty pleas, evidence being heard and thereafter a conviction to be reached, that should be done in a court.

David Lidington: I agree completely.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I compliment my hon. Friend on making a cogent argument? I put it to him, and through him to the Secretary of State, that seeing how reprehensible the Bill is, the Secretary of State has sought to suck the British forces into it as a shield against criticism. On the question of an amendment, the best amendment of all is to strike the legislation down.

David Lidington: That is what I hope Parliament will do.

Tobias Ellwood: How much has the inquiry into Bloody Sunday cost? What will be the consequences to that inquiry if the Bill makes it into law?

David Lidington: The trouble with estimating the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry is that the figure goes up with each written answer, one of which was received by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell).

Nigel Dodds: It is 200 million.

David Lidington: I think that that is the most recent figure. We have to ask serious questions about the value of the exercise.

Julian Lewis: Let us return to the options facing a soldier who took part in an operation such as Loughall, which, I believe, had ministerial prior approval, and who finds himself accused. As I understand it from what the Secretary of State said, he has the option of, in a sense, accepting his guilt, even if he thinks he is innocent, and going through the special procedure, or fighting the case through the courts, where he may be found guilty. Let us suppose that he thinks he is innocent, but does not want to take the risk of being found guilty and serving a sentence. The temptation for him to take the new procedure and accept a guilt that he does not feel will be overwhelming. The historical record will be distorted, because he will have pleaded guilty to something for which no guilty plea was required.

David Lidington: As my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) explained, the problem is that we have a piece of legislation that has been drafted for one purpose, but to which has been added the possible cases of servicemen and police officers. That is the wrong way to proceed.

Ben Wallace: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lidington: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to turn to

Peter Hain: As the issue has been raised, let me again say that a serving or retired soldierwhatever member of the security forces he may beis not forced to plead guilty at all. He can plead his innocence all the way through the process, through the special court or through the normal court procedurehe can choose either. The advantage of him choosing the special court procedure is that he can take advantage of not having to serve a prison sentence if he is found guilty. He may be acquitted, in which case there would be no stain on his character, just as there would not be following such a case in a normal Crown court.
	For the record, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) is one of those who criticises this very provision. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) might want to ask himself why that is.

David Lidington: The House will have heard the Secretary of State's comments.
	One argument that the Government have adduced in support of the Bill is that the provisions are part of, or a natural development from, the process, central to which has been the 1998 Belfast agreement. Indeed, in a number of interviews the Secretary of State explicitly linked the Bill to the precedent of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to justify the measure. However, as other hon. Members said, the measure appears nowhere in the 1998 agreement. It is a product of a bilateral side deal between the Government and Sinn Fein-IRA in 2001. That distinction is important because when it came to the legislation on early release, the Government relied heavily on what was said in the agreement and on the public endorsement of the agreement in the subsequent referendum.
	On Second Reading of the 1998 Act, Mo Mowlam said:
	All we are doing is implementing the agreement, which gained the support of 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland in the vote.[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1086.]
	Ironically, in view of the Secretary of State's argument about unresolved matters and additional things that needed to be done after the 1998 agreement, the Government rejected amendments to the 1998 Act which, in their opinion, were not consistent with the agreement that they had negotiated. Dr. Mowlam also said:
	If we cherry-picked and wrote extra provisions into the Bill that were not in the agreement, we would be departing from that agreement and would lose all moral authority to hold others fully to the commitments that they have made.[Official Report, 18 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 561.]
	That is exactly what the Government are trying to do in this Bill.

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is making great progress, but will he take up this one point with the Secretary of State? The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase that these were unresolved issues. If they were not included in the Good Friday agreement as signed, agreed and voted for, they were resolved not to be on the table and were therefore settled. Is not that the point? They were settled issues, not unresolved issues.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend is correct. When the Secretary of State says that without the deal at Weston Park, we could not have seen an end to the IRA campaign of terror, the House has to ask how that squares when set against the undertaking by Sinn Fein in the 1998 agreement that henceforward it would rely exclusively on democratic and peaceful means to attain its objectives. The logic of the Secretary of State's argument is that we have to do this because we could not trust Sinn Fein to stick to the word solemnly given in the 1998 agreement, now bound into an international treaty.
	The proposals have never been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. They are opposed not just by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, but by the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party of Northern Ireland. Only two parties support the Bill: Labour and Sinn Fein. I would have thought that that fact alone might have caused Ministers to pause before pursuing the route that they appear to have chosen.

Nigel Dodds: Was the hon. Gentleman struck, as I was, by the fact that during the entire length of the Secretary of State's opening remarks, there was not a single intervention from a Labour Member in support of the position adopted by the Government? Does not that tell us something?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is broadly right, although the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made a heroic, if somewhat cautious, effort to come to the Secretary of State's aid.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that many hon. Members have made passionate and heartfelt appeals, especially in terms of the victims, and that is right. Whatever Northern Ireland legislation is considered, the victims should be at the forefront because we have a duty to them. However, does he accept that there is also a duty to the wider community within Northern Ireland and to those people in England whose friends and families have suffered because of the bombings? That is what the Government are taking into account.

David Lidington: I am afraid that the truth is that a deal was madeI suspect between the Prime Minister and the leaders of IRA-Sinn Feinand successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have been lumbered with a poisonous inheritance, with the parcel unfortunately landing in the lap of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).
	It has been argued that the legislation is inextricably linked to getting the IRA to end its terrorist war and to enabling Northern Ireland to return to what the rest of us in Great Britain would regard as normality. The Secretary of State referred to the significance of the IRA's statement in July and its decommissioning announcement in September. His article in The Times yesterday contained a similar reference. I agree that both initiatives were important and welcome. My party and I want the republican movement to completeat last, belatedlythe much-promised transition from terrorism to democratic and peaceful politics, but I also want to be confident that that process is permanent and irreversible. I think that after three decades of killing and bombing, we are entitled to test the IRA's good intentions over a period of time before accepting that they can be trusted.
	Only 12 months ago Sinn Fein-IRA were talking to the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about a new agreement on power sharing, while at the same time, we now know, they were plotting the raid on the Northern bank. Progress has been madeI go along with the Secretary of State that farbut the trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers entertain none of the reservations on which other observers insist. Let us look at what has been said by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which is charged by Parliament and the Government with examining how the paramilitary groups are complying with their undertakings. The most recent IMC report, published in October this year, states that
	it is too early to be drawing firm conclusions about possible overall changes in behaviour
	on the part of IRA-Sinn Fein. It also remarks that
	the leadership of the republican movement has shown a capacity in the past to turn on and off the tap of violence.
	The language employed by the IMC echoes accurately remarks made earlier this year in the Dail by the Taoiseach.
	We still have no commitment by Sinn Fein to support the police, nor any recognition of the legitimacy of the courts. The murderers of Robert McCartney have not been turned in; instead, his sisters have been driven from their homes by intimidation. Others exiled from Northern Ireland over the years by paramilitary threats are still unable to return home.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not also true that there has been no expression of contrition or remorse at any stage?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that if there is to be reconciliation and closure, we should expect that of people who were once active in terrorist groups.
	In the face of all that, I have to ask the Government why there is a need for such haste. What is it that Ministers fear will happen if they do not get the Bill through rapidly and in the form in which it has been presented to Parliament? The truth is that we cannot yet be certain that republicans have made a permanent and irreversible move away from violencebut even if we had that certainty, that confidence, I would still have grave concerns about the substance of the Bill.
	The Secretary of State has repeatedly described the procedures embodied in the Bill as a judicial process, but it is a process from which the courts are at all stages deliberately excluded.

Mark Harper: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of finding out what happened and making sure that people have some sort of closure, but clause 7, headed Exemption from arrest etc, makes it clear that if someone has been granted a certificate of eligibility, no power to obtain information about anything that that person has done in connection with the certified offences may be exercised. We will therefore be unable to find out anything about the offences alleged to have been committed by a person who holds a certificate, so the chances of convicting that person and then letting him out on licence, by which the Secretary of State sets great store, are extremely slim.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. The process in the Bill is not one known to any court in the United Kingdom. Once a certificate has been granted, the defendant is immune from arrest or detention and the tribunal will have no power to set bail or to impose bail conditions. A terrorist could therefore return to live in the next street or next door to the victim whom he has wronged. The police will have no power to enter premises or to search either people or property and they will have no power to take fingerprints or samples. Even evidence that the perpetrator gives about himself in order to obtain a certificate is, in the Bill, explicitly made inadmissible in any proceedings before the tribunal. In practice, once someone has a certificate, no effective further investigation can take place. As my hon. Friend points out, the rules seem to have been drafted to provide the smallest possible chance that any case before the tribunal will end in a verdict of guilty. That is a travesty of both judicial process and the rule of law.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend will remember that when the Secretary of State was challenged on that matter by our hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the only reason why he was not putting such cases through the courts was that he feared they would jam the courts. He used a logistical argument to justify the difference. Does not that nonsense betray the fact that he has no faith in the courts to deal with the matter because he knows that they would exercise proper and rigorous scrutiny, which he does not want?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I thought that that particular argument advanced by the Secretary of State was astonishingly weakit suggests to me the extent to which the Government are flailing around in their attempts to justify a measure that, in their hearts, they know is unacceptable.

Peter Hain: I wish to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House of what I said. The procedures of the special tribunal will mirror those of the Crown court, except in respect of the defendant not having to appear. That is the only exception. The same rules of evidence and the same process in other respects of proper Crown court procedure will apply.

David Lidington: I have to tell the Secretary of State that that is not my reading of the Bill, nor that of senior lawyers with whom I have discussed its contents.

Andrew Turner: If what the Secretary of State says is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, why does he not simply allow the courts to operate in the absence of the accused?

David Lidington: I can only speculate. Given that I do not believe that the logistical argument about court business has any weight, I conclude that the reason is to do with pandering to the reluctance of Sinn Fein-IRA to recognise the courtsto recognise British justice and the legitimacy of the courts of the United Kingdom operating in Northern Ireland.
	The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that someone who is convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment under the special measures would be released only on licence. There is a crucial difference, however, between that provision and the 1998 legislation. In 1998, to be eligible for early release someone had to serve a minimum term. A fixed-term prisoner had to serve at least a third of his sentence before qualifying, and a lifer two-thirds of his expected term. Under the Bill, even if someone commits a serious crime that is unconnected with terrorismto pluck an example at random, let us take someone who is convicted of a bank robberyhe will not forfeit his licence or have it revoked unless he receives a prison sentence of five years or more. That is a serious gap in the licensing arrangements.

Lady Hermon: Even if the Bill completed its passage through the House and another place, is it not the case that it would not succeed if challenged on the ground that it was not compatible with the European convention on human rights? Its time scale is discriminatory and it does not guarantee an adequate remedy for breaches of the convention.

David Lidington: It is highly likely that if the Bill is enactedI hope that it will not bethere will be challenges in our own courts, and possibly at Strasbourg, on the ground set out by the hon. Lady.

Julian Brazier: May I pursue that point and ask my hon. Friend to address the grave matter raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is from the Secretary of State's own ranks and pointed out that the measure will discriminate between terrorist murderers in Northern Ireland and terrorist murderers in the 7/7 bombing?

David Lidington: The Government's arguments on counter-terrorist policy appear less persuasive when they are seen to apply different standards in that fashion.
	The other key argument on which the Government have relied is that the Bill will produce closure and provide the equivalent of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. I fear that the contrary is the caseif anything, the Bill risks making things worse, and I shall explain why. It does not include a deadline by which a perpetrator must admit what he did to acquire a certificate. It provides no penalty whatever for refusing to tell the whole truth. My understanding of the South African experience is that someone's failure to divulge everything that they had done wrong was in itself an imprisonable offence if other misdeeds subsequently came to light.
	Clause 5 explicitly envisages second or subsequent applications for certificates from the same individual. That is grotesque. It means that the terrorist can sit back, waiting to see how much of a case the police have, and can keep the victims dangling in suspense, confident that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card to play whenever the need arises. Nor is there any obligation for the defendant to appear before the tribunal. All he need do is send a letter to the certification commissioner. As was pointed out, he will then be entitled to full legal aid. He never has to turn up in person, and his lawyers can subpoena witnesses, perhaps including victims, and cross-examine them. The defence can seek discovery of sensitive material, and try to embark on fishing expeditions. Not once, however, will the defendant be required to appear.

Alistair Carmichael: Is not the situation even blacker than the hon. Gentleman paints it? If, having undergone that process, the defendant is convicted, for want of a better term, he would probably have cast-iron grounds for appeal, as he was not present to instruct his defence during the trial.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced lawyer, makes a good point, which we look forward to pursuing on Report and in Committee.
	The lack of any obligation on the defendant to appear in person is of more than just procedural importance. The Government have consistently said that they have tried to put the interests of victims at the heart of the Bill, but the Bill denies those victims even the symbolic justice of seeing the terrorist who has perpetrated wrongs against them appear in court in person, either to own up publicly to what he has done or to have responsibility imposed on him by the judgment and subsequent sentence of the court. The House should insist that to bring about peace with justice in Northern Ireland, terrorists and paramilitary organisations should bring themselves within the rule of law. The Bill, however, sets aside the rule of law and proper process to implement a back-stairs political deal. Far from bringing about truth and reconciliation, I fear that it will conceal the truth and prolong the bitterness and grief of families who have already endured years of suffering. It is counter-productive and plain wrong.
	I hope that the Secretary of State, having listened to what has been said by Members from all parts of the House, may yet pause. I hope that the House will tell him tonight that it wants him to take the Bill back and think again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches?

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate.
	Only two Members in the Chamber were present for most of the negotiations that led to the signing of the Good Friday agreement. At the time, however, many hon. Members, in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain, were aware of all the implications of the agreement. The Democratic Unionist party did not agree with the Belfast agreement, and it still does not. Its view was genuine and sincere, but I disagreed with it, because the Good Friday agreement was the only way we could make progress in Northern Ireland. When we examine, as we must, the nature of the release of paramilitary prisoners under that agreement, its implications for our debate will become clear.
	The people of Northern Ireland in the referendum, and the people of Ireland generally, voted in support of the Good Friday agreement. In doing so, they voted to support the release of paramilitary prisoners, but in a context that included many other things. It was a difficult pill for everyone to swallow and, although I will support the Bill this evening, it still is.
	I want to deal with one or two issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) with which I agreed and which the Government could perhaps take on board in Committee and in the other place.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I have great respect for him. Was he ever asked to introduce a Bill such as this while he was Secretary of State?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I was. I was coming to that in a moment. Part of the difference between what happened in 1998, when the people of Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement, including the release of paramilitary prisoners, and the situation later was, as I said, that the context was very different. However, there is no doubt that the issue was discussed at Weston Park in 2001. I was not part of that at the time, but two years later, in 2003, when the joint declaration was published after a long period of negotiations and discussions at Hillsborough castle, it appeared in the public domain. It did not form part of the main joint declaration because there was no agreement on it, but it was out there in public. So it is no real surprise to us all, although perhaps some of the details might be different, that the principle of the Bill was out there in the open.

Peter Robinson: One of the points that have been made is that that deal was done exclusively with Sinn Fein-IRA, both at Weston Park and at Hillsborough. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was so, or whether any of the other parties were involved in discussions on the Bill?

Paul Murphy: The other parties did not agree with the Bill.

Peter Robinson: What was discussed?

Paul Murphy: I cannot recall every detail of the discussions, other than that when the final joint declaration emerged, this part of the discussions, which were mainly with Sinn Fein and the British and Irish Governments, had to be published separately because people did not agree with it.
	There are two issues that the Government ought to consider with a view to the Bill being accepted by people in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom generally. First, the Government should consider seriously some of the amendments that are likely to be proposed. A number have been mentioned this afternoon, including the hugely important one about the victims appearing in court at a time when the person concerned may not have appeared. I hope the Government will listen to the amendments proposed. The difference between now and 1998 is that there has not been a referendum and the context is clearly very different.
	Secondly, it is extremely important to accompany the measure with other measures.

Patrick Cormack: Can I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he would support an amendment to ensure that the people in question had to appear in person in court to answer for their crimes?

Paul Murphy: I would have a great deal of sympathy with such an amendment, but I would take the same view as the hon. Member for Aylesbury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Statewe will examine the details of the amendments when they are tabled. What I am saying is that the amendments are worth considering seriously, and I hope the Government will be in a position to answer some of these points in Committee and in the other place.

Lady Hermon: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether the Government gave an undertaking to Sinn Fein that republicans would not appear in court? Was that a categorical assurance? May we have an amendment to make sure that they do appear in court?

Paul Murphy: If my memory serves me right, the publication in 2003 would have included that provision.
	The point that I am trying to develop is that time goes on, and the word progress rather than closure is sometimes important in this context. We made progress in Northern Ireland as a result of the Good Friday agreement, including having to take some very unpalatable and difficult decisions. If the Bill is to have the same effect, it must be accompanied by other measures, so that the whole community in Northern Ireland feels comfortable with the progress that we are making.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury made an important point in this regard. Although I welcome the statements made by the IRA in July and the decommissioning in Septembereverybody welcomes thatwe must recognise that the Independent Monitoring Commission has a job of work to do, and that we cannot allow continuing criminal activity among the IRA or loyalist organisations to be in any way tolerated. The policing arrangements have now to be accepted by the republican movement in Northern Ireland, just as everybody else accepts what is, after all, part of the Good Friday agreement.

Peter Hain: I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did in getting us to the point where the IRA gave up its terrorist campaign on 28 July. For the record, I confirm that his memory is correct. The proposals published in 2003 after Hillsborough, where he was present, as he said, statedthis was published and the House was aware of itthat the applicant would not be required to be present at the trial.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. I am also grateful for not being in his position today. That is another matter, but he did valiantly.
	The other issues that need to be addressed include thequestion of victims. That is paramount. The appointment of a victims commissioner is a huge step forward, and I know that hon. Members are grateful for that. A victims forum is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has been pushing for that for some time. There should be some provision in the legislation that would prevent victims from having to go through a traumatic court appearance.
	There are further issues that we should consider. Of the political parties in Northern Ireland, clearly it is only republicans who want the Bill to go through. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle will make his own speech, if he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye this afternoon. The Unionist parties have made their position clear, as has the Alliance party. It is imperative, therefore, that measures are taken to give some sort of reassurance right across the community in Northern Ireland about other issues that people need to consider. My hon. Friend will raise some of those later.
	There is also the matter of the Royal Irish Regiments and the home battalions. I refer not to the decision to run those battalions down, but to what happens in the future. That, after all, is a major redundancy issue affecting whole communities in Northern Ireland. Not only people in the Royal Irish Regiments, but people who work in ancillary services will lose their jobs. In order for the legislation to be accepted, it is vital that it is accompanied by other measures to provide reassurance across the board.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the other group whose interests must not be forgotten and should be proceeded with in tandem are those who have been exiled as a result of paramilitary activities in the Province?

Paul Murphy: That will be a matter for considerable debate during the passage of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Alliance party in particular has taken up the matter over the years, but other parties are very much in favour of trying to tackle it.

Julian Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he accept that the reason we are in a more peaceful situation has very much to do with the work of the soldiers and the security forces who were in the front line throughout the years of the troubles? Will he, therefore, from his experience throw light on the circumstances under which it was decided that there would be a historic review of any and every operation in which they were previously involved, which will far from reassure them that their work is appreciated or that their future is secured?

Paul Murphy: I can certainly say that so far as the so-called cold cases were concerned, with the police, for example, I thought it very important that closure was brought to the cases of hundreds of police officers who had lost their lives when there had been no conclusion in terms of getting to the bottom of those cases. That was important, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on that, too. That is a question of closure.
	Ultimately, if we are to achieve peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland, this measure has to be part of it, but it has to be part of many other measures too.

William McCrea: If this agreement was reached between the United Kingdom Government, the Government of the Irish Republic and IRA-Sinn Fein, why is there a difference in the treatment of the murderers of Garda McCabe and the murderers of Reserve Constable Finlay, or any other of the police officers in Northern Ireland?

Paul Murphy: It is not for me to speak on behalf of the Irish Government. It is for them to tell the Government and for the Government to tell the House, but I can understand the comparisons that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I have some sympathy with them.
	If we are to get all the institutions of government in Northern Ireland up and runningthe Assembly, the Executive and everything elsewe must make progress on a number of issues, some of which are rather unpalatable, such as this one.
	When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I was always conscious of the fact that not one single person in Northern Ireland had voted for my party and that I held no mandate in Northern Ireland in terms of its governance, although, of course, one must govern wisely, as best one can. The sooner that direct rule finishes and people in Northern Ireland can govern themselves, the better. Ultimately, the stability of Northern Ireland will be proved by the fact that the people there can work together to govern themselves. Therefore, for his measure to obtain any sort of acceptance

Tobias Ellwood: The right hon. Gentleman talks about long-term prosperity. Is he not concerned about one of the remarks that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made to the Secretary of State, when it was implied that this measure is a condition of disarmament, and that unless it goes through, the peace process could be ruined?

Paul Murphy: To be honest, I do not think that that was said. I do not think for one second that we will return to what we saw in the past, and I sincerely hope not. I am concernedI touched on this in the course of my remarksthat we ensure that we tackle the continued criminality of paramilitary organisations. Unless it can be shown, through the Independent Monitoring Commission, that that has ended, this legislation will be as nought, because ultimately we will have an unwholesome society in Northern Ireland that we will not be able to cope with.

Mark Francois: This point is not at the core of the Bill,   but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the disbandment of the units of the Royal Irish Regiment. He will know from experience that the Territorial Army has been in a different category in Northern Ireland for many years. Given that the TA is so under strength, especially the infantry, would there not be some practical utility in trying to convert some of those RIR units to TA infantry battalions to serve the country as a whole?

Paul Murphy: There may well be, but it is not for me to answer that question.
	I hope that the Government will consider seriously sensible amendments that are proposed to the Bill, and always, and most importantly, ensure that it is accompanied by measures that give confidence and some assurance to people in Northern Ireland who are not from republican backgrounds.

Lembit �pik: I thought long and hard about whether I should contribute today, but on the balance of considerations I thought that it was appropriate for me to do so, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear with me.
	On the evening of Monday 21 November 2005, without warning and with a suddenness that one could never prepare for, my brother, Endel pik, died. He was born in Belfast, an Inst. boy through and through, although not a very good one, and he was 37 years old. We do not yet know the cause. We hope that tomorrow's post mortem will tell us.
	More even than the death of my father in May this year, I have found his death devastating and difficult to deal with. However, I am making a contribution after much consideration because I feel that this will help me, my family and my friends to put his death into some sort of context, if a death so sudden can ever be regarded as having some message, lesson or meaning. I make it because Endel was greatly interested in parliamentary matters, and I am sure that he would want me to be here today, not least because to be mentioned in the Commons by name would appeal to his vanity.
	I thank colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, for their comments. I am lucky to work with so many people who care for others in times of tragedy. All the same, such shocking personal news makes one think about all the things that one doesit alters one's sense of priorities. I am passionate about what we do here, and no one takes the business of the House and this legislation more seriously than me, which is why I have sought to fulfil my duties today. The passing away of that wonderful gentle giant from my life perhaps causes me to connect more closely with what I learned last week, when I met victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. The connection is unexpected, and it is one that I would not have wished for, but it is important all the same.
	When I met relatives of victims last week, I marvelled at their dignity and their words of sorrow, not of anger. I imagine that when they were first informed of the news, they felt that a mistake had been made. They may have felt that they would turn up at the hospital and see their loved one safe and well, or at least recovering. They will have felt angry and bewildered, because those victims of unexpected death were not done with their lives. They will have wished that there was a way to bring back their relatives. When I met them, I did not understand how they could be so circumspect, because their losses were so sudden and unexpected.
	I hope that I find some peace from the verdict on what killed my brother, when we finally get it from the doctors, but ultimately I already know that fate took him. By contrast, the people who took the victims of terror are in part still at large. The relatives of victims have not had an opportunity to face the killer of their friend, their relative or their lover, which is what makes their loss so hard for them to bear. It is that, and my own loss, which causes me to come here not to confront the Government, but to seek to find a way to make the legislation right.
	The Secretary of State has said that the Bill is about closure, and I used to use that phrase, too. I now realise that it is not really about closure, because it is hard to get closure about the sudden death of someone one loves, but it is about coming to terms with that loss. The Bill is about giving the relatives of the victims some control back, after an event in their lives that was totally out of their control. As the Bill stands, it does not provide a reasonable and balanced process to achieve that outcome. Let us examine the problems with the Bill and what we might do collectively to improve it.
	At the outset, I note that the Government take wildly different approaches to terrorism and terrorists, depending on whether the terrorists come from Northern Ireland or elsewhere. On 9 November, the Prime Minister fought hard for the legislative power to detain terrorist suspects without charge for up to 90 days, but on that same day his Government introduced legislation to give Northern Ireland terrorist suspects on the run from the authorities the right to return home free from any danger of arrest or incarceration after a limited quasi-judicial hearing. In my view, that is a contradiction. Why do Ministers think it consistent to seek to allow those suspected of terrorism in Northern Ireland to return without sentence while detaining for 90 days those who have not even been charged with anything?
	In general, I favour the approach adopted by the Government in Northern Ireland. I support their serious efforts to address the motivations behind terrorists, even if that directly contradicts their so-called war against international terrorism. I even agreed, as the Liberal Democrats collectively did, with the early release of politically motivated prisoners, which was one of the most difficult aspects of the Good Friday agreement. It was a bitter pill for many law-abiding people to swallow, not least the victims and the relatives of those victims. However, it was accepted, because it was part of the wider package agreed by the participants at the talks process in Northern Ireland.
	The Bill has sparked an even greater storm, because across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland it was not recognised as part of the Good Friday agreement, and it was not part of a cross-party agreement.
	Let us remember who the on-the-runs are. They are people suspected of terrorist acts who have never faced the courts, or they have escaped from prison. They include those suspected of involvement in all kinds of atrocities; the hon. Member for Aylesbury apprised us of a number of those. It is obvious that this should be addressed in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of all the people of Northern Ireland, not only the on-the-runs, nor the organisations from which they derive.
	Unfortunately, however, that was not the case. The first proposals for dealing with the on-the-runs came from the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in July 2001. It was not part of a package that all the participants had negotiated and agreed to. We heard confirmation of that from the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). It was asked for by Sinn Fein and, as far as I can tell, agreed to by the British Government. It was bipartisanship but of an unusual sort, because the two parties were Sinn Fein and the Government. Those original proposals amounted to an amnesty. At the time, Liberal Democrat Members stated very clearly that we would not accept such an amnesty.
	Matters developed until the joint declaration in April 2003. The Secretary of State said that there was no written agreement with regard to the content of the Bill. In a sense, he is right, but then there is the dubious status of the attachment to the joint declaration. As he noted, it says:
	The applicant would not be required to be present at the trial.
	I fully understand why a member of Sinn Fein or the IRA would interpret that as some kind of commitment, because it was proposed by the Government. However, very importantly, the Secretary of State confirmed today that no written agreement was made with Sinn Fein. That is important because, unless he is implying that a verbal agreement was made with Sinn Fein, it means that the Government have the latitude to improve the legislation here and in Committee without compromising any secret deal with Sinn Fein or the IRA. I do not need to speculate about whether there was a secret deal. If the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister stand by that statement that there is no secret deal, the Government are not constrained to reject proposals of the sort that are being made by us.
	I recognise that the Government have to some extent moved on the issue since the original statements at Weston Park. The Bill proposes that an offender who wishes to return to Northern Ireland will have to apply to a certification commissioner. The case is then heard by a special tribunal presided over by a retired judge. There will be a special prosecutor to put the case for the state. There are various complicated appeals processes. As it stands, however, it is so far outside the normal judicial process that one has to ask why the Government do not simply use the procedures that are already there. If the crucial element in all this is licensing, I do not see why we are not discussing a simpler Bill which, although unpalatable to many, would unquestionably have much more support than the Bill that we are considering.
	Let me look at the specifics. Qualifying offenders will not have to appear before the special tribunal in order to avail themselves of the scheme; instead, they will be able to be represented by proxies. As the special tribunal will have all the powers of the Crown court, the Bill creates a very distressing situation whereby victims and witnesses of the offences could be subpoenaed to appear in court to give evidence against an accused person who is not even there. How can anyone regard that as full judicial process? How can anyone regard it even as a process that can work?
	Various explanations have been given for this but I find none of them plausible. First, it is simply not victim-focused. That is completely wrong. An appearance in court would give a limited sense of relief to some victims and relativessmall consolation, but it would be a start. It would clearly show that what the offender did was criminal and continues to be wrong, even if they were released on licence.
	The second, related point is about the status of the court. We believe that the qualifying offender should be tried before the Crown court since one of the justifications for the Bill is that it generates full judicial process. If the Government want full judicial process, they should use it rather than creating a parallel quasi-judicial system.

Greg Mulholland: I, too, wish to express my condolences to my hon. Friend. I also pay tribute to the courage he has shown by being here and leading our Northern Ireland team in the debate. That sends a clear message to everybody about the importance of the issue to him and to us.
	I do not believe that the question that I want to ask has been addressed so far. If the people called to the cases that we are considering cannot be arrested or detained, I presume that they cannot be questioned. If that is the case, it is impossible to have any process that could be called justice; it makes a farce of the proposals.

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that the Minister in his summation will explain in what exactly the defendants can expect to participate if they are not involved in the most important element in the eyes of the victimsa personal appearance in court.
	In addition, and connected to my hon. Friend's comments, if justice is not seen to be done, the Government send hopelessly mixed messages to terrorists of the past and vigilantes of the present and future. Again, the Government provide an extraordinary defence of the non-use of courts. The Secretary of StateI appreciate that he needed to leave to meet some relatives of victimssaid that he did not want the process to jam up existing courts. However, did not the same Government repeatedly tell us that the number of on-the-runs was relatively small? In that case, why would the process jam up the courts?
	If the Government regard the courts as jammed up by the process, what exactly is the legal system in Northern Ireland for? There is no more important subject to the relatives of the victims or to those who cherish the rule of law than the trial of people who escaped justice for some of the most atrocious terrorist offences. If the best that the Government can do is tell us that they are worried that the courts will be jammed, I challenge the Minister to state the more important cases to which we must give way.

Kate Hoey: Water charges.

Lembit �pik: What is so important? Is it the water charges or some minor felony? To justify the creation of a parallel system by citing the fear of overstretching the existing one is not joined-up government and is disrespectful to the considerable needs and psychological requirements of the relatives and victims.
	The Government could expand the legal system. That would be perfectly logical and I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would understand if there needed to be greater appropriation to fund the expansion of the existing legal service in Northern Ireland. Again, we find a contradictionthe contradiction of cost. Not so long ago, in a Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) proposed the increase in size of Diplock courts from one judge to three. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) opposed that suggestion. He said:
	One issue as well as fairness that it is appropriate to consider in any judicial system is cost to the taxpayer.
	He went on to say:
	Those judges would have to be recruited and trained, and accommodation would have to be provided for them. If necessaryof course we would do this if we were to move to that system . . . That would have significant financial implications.[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 November 2005; c. 2526.]
	So one of the key reasons the Minister cited for opposing the expansion of the number of judges on the Diplock courts from one to three was cost. But think of the cost of creating this new, parallel system to try what we are told is a relatively small number of on-the-runs. It is utterly inconsistent to oppose the relatively modest cost of expanding the size of a Diplock court while completely ignoring the financial implications of these proposals. I believe that all hon. Members would accept that, for the sake of justice, costs should be borne. The Government cannot justify what they said on the matter of the three judges, but this simply highlights the tactical and non-strategic way in which they have introduced this legislation.
	Thirdly, the Government still resist an explicit linkage between the return of the on-the-runs and the return of those exiled by paramilitary organisations. Thousands were driven from their homes by loyalist and republican paramilitaries, even after the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The latest Independent Monitoring Commission report backs this up. It covers the period from March to August 2005, and states that
	we believe there have been a number of instances during the period covered by this report where people have been forced from their homes by paramilitary groups or by their membersPIRA, RIRA, the UVF and the UDA . . . We have yet to find evidence that any paramilitary group is generally allowing the return of those it has exiled, or is considering doing so. The PIRA statement of 28 July makes no specific reference to this issue.
	We accept that, while some exiles might be petty criminals, others simply fell out with the local paramilitary godfathers. This is a forgotten aspect of the peace process. In 2000, the Northern Ireland Select Committee noted the difficulties in quantifying the scale of the problem, as victims naturally feared reporting the intimidation that they were experiencing. It is obvious that they would. It is perverse to allow some paramilitaries to return in safety while those exiled by the paramilitaries are kept away. We feel that certification should be linked to a positive report on this matter by the IMC.
	Fourthly, the grounds for revoking a licence were set very narrowly in 1998. All paramilitary activity constitutes a threat to democracy and the rule of law. During the loyalist violence this summer, however, Ministers treated as different the actions directed by paramilitaries against those from their own community. A commitment to end all violence was supposedly at the heart of the recent IRA statement. It makes sense, therefore, to link the licence terms of the on-the-runs to the condition that there will be no engagement in any criminal activity, either by the individual or by the organisation with which they associate. This really must include exiles.
	Our fifth core concern is the lack of a sunset clause in the Bill. Already, the hon. Member for Aylesbury has rightly pointed out the danger of creating a get-out-of-jail-free card that can be manipulated by the on-the-run in question, rather than achieving a settlement for the victims. Victims need a time frame for those accused of a particular offence to come forward. The uncertainty would otherwise present yet another trauma. Have they not suffered enough, without this extra open-ended wait?
	In recent months, there has been little sense of an inclusive process that takes into account the whole community. We have seen a series of trade-offs between the Government and the republicans, and a parallel process of minor concessions to the DUP, presumably to balance out the concessions to the IRA and Sinn Fein. If the Government are exclusive, they will not create the consensus on which we absolutely depend for the restoration of devolution. Imposing unjust measures over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland will destabilise the process rather than consolidating it.
	In its present form, the Bill looks like yet another concession. If it applied, in some high-profile form, to the legal system throughout the United Kingdom, I would question whether the Government would carry the vote. The reason they could well do so in this instance is that, being Northern Ireland legislation, the Bill is not as provocative as some of the other highly criticised legislation that we have debated recently. Being able to get the Bill through, however, is not a good enough reason to force it through.
	Very little of what we say in the House directly affects the lives of the public, but our decisions do make a difference. There is no risk that the Government will lose face by doing the right thing. Indeed, their acceptance that the Bill should be changed will register only fleetingly in the public perception, but the changes will make all the difference to victims and their families. I would not regard movement by the Government as a sign of weakness. I would regard it as a sign of strength, and, crucially, a sign of compassion. By the same token, changes in the Bill do not constitute a defeat for Sinn Fein or the IRA. If promises made in the past by the Prime Minister or anyone else were unreasonable, it is obvious that those unreasonable promises should be seen for what they are, and that the case for a more reasonable settlement should be accepted today.
	I ask the Government to show that they are serious enough about doing the right thing to change the Bill to meet the psychological needs of the victims, without dragging us through the normal process of brinkmanship and rejection between the two Houses between now and December. If the former perpetrators of terror are really serious about the peace, they will understand the reasons for the changes. Like other hon. Members, I know from meetings I have attended that former terrorists do understand the consequences of what they did. I appeal to them directly: surely, in their hearts, they recognise the needs of victims too.
	To those who have threatened us with the collapse of the peace process, I say this. Do the Government really believe that the peace is so fragile and flimsy that it will be brought down by a number of important but ultimately minor modifications to the entire body of law in Northern Ireland? I believe that it is more robust than that, because I have faith in what has been said. I urge the Government to believe their own words about that peace, and act with the courage of their convictions.
	No one can pretend that the Bill is about victory for the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, the Social Democratic and Labour party or any other party. No one can pretend that this is a direct tussle between the Government and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which also has major problems with the Bill. It is not about us. It is about the relativesrelatives who, bewildered, came to see their dearest lying injured or silent and lifeless in a hospital; relatives who stood there unprepared and uncomprehending that this could have happened to them.
	I would like to find a way of supporting legislation to bring all this to a close, but as things stand, I cannot. That is why, along with the Conservatives, we tabled the amendment, and we shall vote accordingly later. There is too much emphasis on protecting the accused, and too little emphasis on supporting the bereaved. I understand that for those on the run it will be hard, but it will be easier than the sudden loss of someone, without warning, on a day that began as normal and ended in bereavement. I know that facing a court, and facing relatives in court, is hard for a defendant; but it is not as hard as waking every morning knowing that, for the rest of your life, someone whom you loved will never walk into your house again, and missing that person more than words can say.

Mark Durkan: Like other hon. Members, I want to offer my sincere condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who has just spoken so movingly not just of his own bereavement, but of the sense of grief and grievance that is still carried to this day by so many victims in Northern Ireland. It is a mark of the hon. Gentleman's sense of duty to Northern Ireland as well as to this House that he is in his place today at this difficult time in a very difficult debate. It must tax his emotions as well as his concentration today. He has our full sympathy and the regard of every hon. Member in the House.
	I wish I shared the faith of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in much of what the Government have said, but unfortunately I do not. I do not because, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) reflected, a couple of us in our places today were present for most of the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement and we were in and aroundif not always allowed to be part ofthe various subsequent negotiations, including all the side deals, sub-deals and pseudo-deals that have littered the process ever since.
	When we negotiated the Good Friday agreement and when it was put to the public in the referendum, yes, prison releases were certainly partalbeit a very difficult partof the process. However, in the context of the referendum campaign, people asked hard and difficult questions about outstanding cases, including those for which there had been no convictions. People asked whether there would be an amnesty or a wipe-out or whether the files would be closed. Assurances were given by Minister upon Minister, including the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, that all the outstanding cases would continue to be pursued and that those who had issues to face would be brought to court. It was said that, if convicted, they might have to spend only two years in jail, but they would appear in court, they would be convicted and they would spend time in jail. That is what the victims were told at that time. It was on the basis of that expectation that many people struggled to vote in favour of the agreement and did so. What is happening now betrays the commitments and promises that were given at that time. It is dishonest and disingenuous for the Government to claim that the Bill was always going to happen as it is simply a logical extension of prior agreements. It contradicts assurances and explanations that were specifically given at the time of the agreement and the referendum.

Andrew Robathan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be so foolish as to trust the Government again.

Mark Durkan: The Government know that I have never been quite so foolish as always to trust them. I have not always believed them, and even if I trusted them, I certainly would not rely on themwe found that to our cost.
	As the Secretary of State and others have confirmed, the whole question of the on-the-runs first arose in the context of the Weston Park negotiations. Those were peculiar negotiations in which the two Governments talked to different parties about different issues. Yes, we were in the same premises, but we were all on a different agenda. The SDLP was being talked to about policing and the question of public inquiries in respect of the Finucane, Nelson and Hamill cases. Sinn Fein was talked to about OTRs, as that was the issue that it had raised, and decommissioning. The Ulster Unionist party were talked to about decommissioning and the institutions. We were all being talked to about different things.
	The Governments came forward with declarations and promises at Weston Park and I note that the Secretary of State said that the Government feel that they are duty-bound to honour commitments. We were given commitments at Weston Park. The public were given commitments post-Weston Park in respect of the process set up to establish whether inquiries should go ahead. We were told that if Judge Cory recommended public inquiries, public inquiries there would be in certain cases. That promise was not honoured, even though it was part of an international agreement between the British and Irish Governments.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) says that we did not have guns. Weston Park was the third occasion since the Good Friday agreement on which the then SDLP leadership of John Hume and Seamus Mallon complained to the Government about how the process was conducted, particularly about the privileged and exclusive negotiating position given to Sinn Fein and, to a degree, to the Ulster Unionist party. It was also the third occasion on which the Prime Minister gave us what we regarded as a counsel of cynicism at the timeYou guys, your problem is you don't have guns. That is what the SDLP was told at Weston Park and it was the third time that we had been told it.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is making a profound criticism of this Government's handling of the peace process. Does he agree that the privileged status given to Sinn Fein-IRA during that process has been devastating for the fate of constitutional nationalism in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that the Government's management of the peace process has ensured that republicans and their advocates have a strengthened political position, while the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who have stood honourably for constitutional nationalism, have lost out, as have their electors? Has not the process of building a democratic middle ground suffered as a direct result of the Government's tactics?

Mark Durkan: In many respects, what is devastating to the SDLP is neither here nor there. I do not want to go down that road. What is important is that different Governments have handled the process, through arrangements such as those made at Weston park, in a way that has devastated the Good Friday agreement. This Government's approach has not merely interrupted the implementation of the agreement, but corrupted it.
	As the right hon. Member for Torfaen has said, that issue came up again in the Hillsborough negotiations of spring 2003.

Andrew Turner: In an earlier intervention, I asked whether the Prime Minister had made that appalling statement about the SDLP and the fact that it did not have guns. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman indicated his agreement that it was the Prime Minister who used those words?

Mark Durkan: Yes, and this is not the first time that the matter has gone on the record. Seamus Mallon has referred to it before, as have I, in describing our criticisms and frustrations with how the process has been handled since the Good Friday agreement was reached originally.
	In the Hillsborough negotiations, different parties again found themselves talking to the Government about different issues. There was to be a joint declaration at the conclusion of those talks, and it was originally to have five annexes. One of those annexes was to deal with the subject of OTRs. Another dealt with the establishment of the IMC and a menu of sanctions demanded by the UUP.
	The UUP was very clear that it wanted no part of the provisions relating to OTRs, and completely disagreed with them. My party made it very clear, as we did at Weston park, that those proposals did not derive from the agreement. We repeated that any anomaly that needed to be addressed could be dealt with in the proper way, but that nothing should have priority over implementing the agreement. Sinn Fein had issues with the menu of sanctions outlined in the other draft annexe to which I have referred, as did my party.
	The Government responded by reducing the number of annexes from five to three. Instead of being an annexe to the joint declaration, the OTR paper was to be published coincidentally and in parallel with it. The same thing was to happen with the paper on the IMC and the menu of sanctions.
	That was a dishonest move. It was a deal that was a non-deal, in that it allowed Sinn Fein to say that it had secured provisions on OTRs but had not accepted sanctions. It also allowed the UUP to continue to say that it had never accepted OTRs and would continue to oppose any legislation on the subject emerging from this House, while claiming that it had secured a promise on sanctions.
	That was no way to run a process originally founded on inclusion and which stemmed from an agreement whose institutions could work only on that basis. That is how the Government have got themselves into the mess and debacle that they face today as far as their credibility and sense of moral authority are concerned.
	I deeply regret that. I have many criticisms and frustrations about the Government's handling of the process since the Good Friday agreement was reached, but I do not believe that any agreement could have been achieved without this Government and Prime Minister. Many good measures and benefits have flowed from the Government's positive handling of some matters, but they could have listened to better counsel in respect of Hillsborough.
	The Bill springs from the commitments made to Sinn Fein at the time of the Hillsborough declaration. However, other commitments were made in the Hillsborough declaration that the Government still show no urgency about honouring. I could take this from the Secretary of State if every other commitment had been honoured to the letter and in the spirit in which they were given, but they have not been. A case in point is the joint declaration, at the SDLP's behest and supported by the Alliance party and some others, that consideration would be given to establishing a forum for victims and survivors. It still has not happened. All that we are told is that the new victims commissioner will look at the issue. Surely one point of having a victims and survivors forum is to allow victims and survivors themselves to advance ideas and proposals on how to deal with the issues of truth, remembrance and recognition that are so important to them. That is an outstanding promise from the Good Friday agreement that has still not been delivered to victims.
	Only when we know that a framework has been sensitively and properly agreed with victims and survivors for dealing with truth, remembrance and recognition should we deal with the so-called anomaly of on-the-runs and decide how the perpetrators of the victims' hurt should be dealt with. As other hon. Members have said, if those issues have to be dealt with, surely it would be better to do so once we have certainty about where everyone is in relation to policing and the proper administration of justice.
	We have in this Bill the anomaly that police officers will be forced to take part in pseudo-court proceedings and lend the authority of their office to them, while the people who will benefit from the proceedings will not have to turn up and can continue to impugn the legitimacy and credentials of those same police officers. In the same way, as other hon. Members have mentioned, victimsespecially those who witnessed the crime in which they lost a loved onecould be compelled to be a party to proceedings with which they fundamentally disagreed, whereas the alleged culprits do not even have to appear. They can stay in the comfort of their homein the comfort of their holiday home in some casesand just receive a text message to confirm what has happened. They will find it harder to download a new ring tone than to obtain the benefits of the new system. The difference between the way in which the possible perpetrators of crimes will be treated, as opposed to the victims or the police who have tried to deal with those crimes, is invidious.
	After the Good Friday agreement, victims were told that cases would continue to be pursued. One of the good things that the Government have done in recent yearsI pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Torfaenwas to provide the resources to establish the cold cases review, or the historic inquiries team, which offered the assurance that the files would not remain closed, people would not be allowed to escape any liability and the truth would be pursued. The legislation will fundamentally undermine that commitment, because it will mean that if anyone is named by the review or has anything to hide, they can sit and wait in a calculated way. They do not have to take a chance and apply to benefit from the legislation, because there is no time limit as an incentive to disclose their involvement. That is normally what happens with tax and other amnesties. Instead, they can sit back and wait and see if a police officer ever knocks on their door about a particular crime. If the police officer knocks and the person is charged, they can play the Bill like a trump card. They can say, Right, we're going to benefit from what Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have negotiated in the OTR concession. That will apply to everybodynot just republican paramilitaries, but loyalist paramilitaries and people in the state forces involved in a crime, whether committed by them directly or committed by paramilitaries and in which they were complicit, whether through collusion or other forms of crime solicitation. All those people will benefit from this legislation, and that is wrong. That is why more and more victims are expressing their shock, disgust and hurt at the legislation.
	For victims, the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill is the Northern Ireland offensive Bill, and it is particularly offensive that the Government are presenting it in terms of closure. That shows neither sensitivity to victims, nor due regard for the intelligence of Members. The Bill is about closure for victim makers, to give them the comfort that they will never have to answer for their crime: not merely will they not have to spend a day in jail; they will not even have to spend a moment in court. It will be harder to appear on the X Factor than to benefit from the procedures that the Government are setting up. They will be open to anyone who has anything to hide about any crime.
	The offence has to be
	in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland,
	so it would not even have to be the murders or the more overtly political crimes we have been talking about; it could be any crime committed before April 1998. As long as the person claimed that they committed the crime as a function of their membership of this or that paramilitary organisation, or as a spin-off from their membership of the security forces, they can claim indemnity.
	The Government say that the Bill is not an amnesty. It may not be called an amnesty, but it has all the DNA of an amnesty and the Government should not try to pretend otherwise. The Secretary of State has moved from the Prime Minister's argument yesterday, that an anomaly needed to be resolved, to the argument that the Bill is about bringing people to justice and making them answerable to justice. However, it is such a bespoke system, with so many guarantees and so many comforts and privileges for the accused that it is an amnesty in all but name. The Government should be more honest in their language if they expect Members to be reassured about some of their commitments.
	We will vote against the Bill. We shall also table amendments in Committee, some of which will test the Government's sincerity as they will propose to limit the Bill only to the on-the-runs whom the Government and Sinn Fein say the measure was originally about. The Secretary of State challenged the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the Conservative spokesman, but I challenge the Government to tell us what they will do when we table amendments to make the Bill do no more than they committed themselves to do in their agreements with the Irish Government and with Sinn Fein. We shall see how the Government rise to that challenge.
	I cannot conclude without again emphasising what the process means for victims. We must all be careful as we conduct the debate that we are sensitive to the fact that we are treading on the grief, even yet, of many people.

Ian Paisley: The Bill flies in the face of justice. It is about excuses for crimes, some heinous.
	The Bill is fundamentally flawed. It is an attack on some of the most basic elements of justice and yet again demonstrates that the Government are prepared to enthrone expediency and dethrone principle. That is what is happening in the House today. I never thought that I would be a Member of the British House of Commons discussing such a Bill from any Government.
	Recently, the whole of the United Kingdom was talking about the 90-day amendment, which was not accepted by the House, yet while Members who voted against the amendment were being impaled because they were soft on terrorism, the Government were issuing a Bill that characteristically is a complete sell-out of the British justice system. If the Bill goes through, we shall set up two systems of justice: one on which there is the light of democracy, liberty and law; while the other is a court that has on it the fingermarks of the IRA.
	The Bill has been drawn up to give the IRA what it wanted. How happy I am that I took no part in all the conferences that have been described. The more that I am told of those conferences, the more I say, Thank God, I was not there, but some today who criticised us for not going to those conferences have indicted some of the talks that took place. When hon. Members look at it, they will remember that the people of Northern Ireland were being deceived. Indeed, the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland and put up on the wallhe became a graffiti writerall the good things that would come from the Anglo-Irish agreement, but he did not tell us the things that the people who sat around the table knew, and those things have been declared today.
	I have heard many criticisms of those who did not go with the Anglo-Irish agreement, but today the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland do not go with the agreement. The Government never told them that they could have another opportunity to express their wishes. Oh no, everything was done to proceed along a path that the people did not want to go down. That is why there is a distinct change in the representation from Northern Ireland. That is why there is a difference among Unionists in Northern Ireland today. We have come to the position where we must stand up for the basics of our British heritage. We must stand up for courts that are courts. We must stand up for justice that is justice. We must stand up for those elementary rights that are the basics of the British constitution.
	When we come to what took place, we remember all the arguments that took place at the time. A senior Irish Government source said:
	Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble's scathing portrayal of a proposed amnesty for fugitive paramilitaries as the last straw for unionists is deeply disingenuous. The UUP leader they point out was a participant at the Weston Park talks last summer when the principle of an amnesty for on the runs paramilitaries was approved by the Irish and British governments and Trimble was fully aware of the agreement and its implications at the time the document was drawn up.
	Yet he was busy denying throughout the country that he had any knowledge of it. In fact, the former deputy leader of the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) at that time, Mr. Mallon, said:
	Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that the leader of his party
	the Unionist party, as he was addressing a Unionist Member of Parliament
	sat through seven months of negotiations that produced a document called the joint declaration which he did not see?[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 121.]
	So there was a conspiracy to keep from the people of Northern Ireland what those at the talks were really discussing.
	How very different it was at Leeds castle. I was called in one nightit was almost after midnightand I was told what I must do by the others. I said, I'm not doing it. I'm going now to my bed. I called all my people out, and I said, If you want to see me, Mr. Prime Minister, I'll be here at 7 o'clock in the morning. If you don't want to see me, I don't care. I'm not bending my knee to you. I represent people! Those people put me where I am, and I am going to keep my faith. When I leave politics, no Ulsterman or woman, whether Unionist or nationalist, will look me in the face and say that I did not keep the word that I pledged to my people. And I left, and when I got back, the Prime Minister was waiting to tell me that he was not proceeding with what everyone had planned, so they did not get anything out of me. They will not get anything out of me, other than what I am pledged to fight for on behalf of my constituents. I am here to represent them, and by the grace of God I am going to do that, and so is my party.

Alasdair McDonnell: rose

Ian Paisley: The Government can wheedle and say this, that or the other thing, but the straight line is this: there is only one remedy for Northern Ireland and that is pure democracy. We need a return to pure democracy.

Alasdair McDonnell: rose

Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to give way? He should ask for ithe might get it. I do not believe in silent people.

Alasdair McDonnell: Was this on-the-runs stuff not in the comprehensive agreement of a year ago? [Hon. Members: No.] Well, it was very clear to most of us that there was some[Interruption.] I am sorry, but there was some reference to it and there was a fair amount of detail of it.

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Rev. Ian Paisley to respond to the intervention.

Ian Paisley: I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) that I wrote to the Prime Minister to tell him that I wanted him to sign a document to show that we had nothing to do with these things. I have that document, for I was not going to be   fooled like other peoplethere was too much at stake.

Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. GentlemanI shall give you your proper title. What you say confirms that you knew that on foot of the Government's dealings with Sinn Fein, legislation would come forward and you would be in the position of opposing it in the House. That was the same position as the Ulster Unionist party

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members of the need for the correct use of parliamentary language?

Ian Paisley: I shall leave the Ulster Unionists to answer for themselves. The people of Northern Ireland know what happened and they have given their verdict. I am not re-fighting the elections; elections come and elections go. The people of Ulster have given their verdict, and I wish that the House would heed that verdict.

Nigel Dodds: On 31 October 2005, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in the House:
	I can confirm that the pro-agreement parties were consulted and gave their general endorsement to the joint declaration in 2003.[Official Report, 31 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 632.]
	The on-the-runs proposal was part of the annexe to that joint declaration, as was the IMC.

Ian Paisley: All I can say is that I was in the House when the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland read out a letter that had been sent by Mr. Trimble on that very issue. It is in Hansard, so hon. Members can read exactly what was in it. This is not something that we have made up in our minds. However, I am glad that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will be in the right Lobby tonight. I hope that he will table amendments for thorough discussion in Committee, because I agree with the former Secretary of State that there are matters with which we must get to grips because they run to the very depths of the matter of Northern Ireland and its good government. I am sure that hon. Members will be able to put their case in Committee.
	I have been a Member of the House for a long time, but I have never before seen a Minister getting what the Secretary of State got today. Surely that message should get home to the Government. Surely the Government should say, Hold on. What are we going to gain by this?
	What did Mr. Adams say today? He said that he did not believe that the police or the Army should have anything but the law of the land, but he wants a different law for his people. That is his attitude. He needs to get the message loud and clear that we all stand on a common platform: every man obedient to the law and every man equal under that law. When Northern Ireland gets that, we will have real agreement, peace and prosperity for our people, whether they be Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Hottentots or anyone elsethey will all share in it.

Patrick Cormack: Especially the Hottentots.

Ian Paisley: Exactly. I always knew that the hon. Gentleman was very ecumenical.
	The people of Northern Ireland are looking to the House to defend their rights. They do not want those rights trampled on. They want pure justice. I appeal to hon. Members: give us pure justice. If we have that, we will see our way through this, as we have seen our way through the past.

Kate Hoey: May I first add my condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and say how brave he has been to come to the Chamber today and give us his views? I happen to agree with every word he said.
	It is an amazing day in the House of Commons because the leaders of the two largest parties on the Unionist side and the nationalist side are, give or take a few nuances, virtually in agreement. It is also amazing that my Government are pushing through the Bill. They always say, Why don't people in Northern Ireland get together? Why can't we get the good non-violent democratic constitutional parties to work together?, but that is what is happening with the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and, I hope, some Labour Membersyet the Secretary of State does not seem to be listening. I hope that many of my colleagues think that the only way to show the Government that the Bill needs radical change is either by voting against the Government or, if they cannot bring themselves to do that, at least to abstain.
	I heard the Secretary of State on the Today programme this morning, when he went on about the Opposition. I am not here to defend themthey can do that for themselvesbut it was strange to hear him say that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are not supporting the Bill in the cosy bipartisan way that Labour always adopted when it supported the Conservatives on similar measures. When I first came into the House, I remember having almost to hide because I was not prepared to vote against the prevention of terrorism legislation and other measures. Many of my colleagues in the Labour party did not agree with the Opposition line. Even when the Prime Minister was shadow Home Secretary, we voted against some of the emergency powers legislation. I accept that the parties' views changed and eventually we voted for that legislation, but I reject the idea that all Northern Ireland legislation has to go through on a bipartisan basis.

David Winnick: I note what my hon. Friend says, but is not it a fact that the Labour Opposition strenuously opposed the IRA atrocities, as we opposed the loyalist atrocities? We made it clear time and time again that the Government were right to resist the terrorist attempt to unite Ireland against the wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

Kate Hoey: I respect my hon. Friend and he is right on that, but it does not get around the expectation that people should support the Government because we always support Governments on measures to do with Northern Ireland.
	We hear over and over again that the Bill is a necessary part of moving the peace process forward. I am fed up with hearing people talkthe Prime Minister did it again todayabout the pain and anguish that they feel. The Secretary of State talked about the difficulty of the situation. I do not understand how a measure that is against the fundamental principles of our judicial system can move the peace process forward.
	Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Why should we allow a cart and horses to be driven through the judicial system? Who has signed up to the Bill? None of the constitutional democratic parties in Northern Ireland has done so. The Secretary of State told us today that there has been some sort of agreement with IRA-Sinn Fein, but we know nothing about thatwe were not asked. It is shocking to me that the Bill is being pushed through against clear misgivings, even among members of my own party. Several hon. Members have said to me, I really don't like this. I know that there is something wrong about it. If some appalling terrorist action took place in my constituency and someone was murdered, I could not vote for a measure that meant that the perpetrators would be able to come back and walk around and face the victims' families. I do not understand why we should treat Northern Ireland as though it were so different. The people of Northern Ireland are members of the human race. As people living in the United Kingdom, they are entitled to the same rights and duties as the rest of us.

Gregory Campbell: It appears that part of the reason why we are being asked to move the process on by voting for the Bill can be found in the words of the Prime Minister. The other day, he seemed to suggest that Sinn Fein had demanded it as the price for ever again entering an Executive in Stormont.

Kate Hoey: I do not know what the Prime Minister has said about some of these things. I feel strongly that the commitments given under the Belfast agreement by the Prime Minister were not always kept. That is why there is so much discontent among the many people who, despite terrible worries, voted for the agreement because they thought that the Prime Minister and the Government meant everything they said. That did not happen. Now, it is the people who have not kept their promisesnamely, Sinn Fein-IRAwho are getting everything they want.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady says that she is not sure what the Prime Minister has said in recent days. Yesterday, in front of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	I really believe it is best to get this issue out of the way so that we can get on with building . . . an executive
	and an
	assembly that is back up and running again.
	Later, he said:
	I also genuinely believe . . . we need to get this out of the way and
	dealt with
	so that we then get on with . . . the really tough thing, which is
	building consent for the institutions.
	He added:
	if you do not deal with this you cannot move . . . forward. I think the most important thing is to move it forward.
	The implication is that the Bill is a precondition for restoring the Assembly and the Executive. Whose precondition is it? What party has said, We'll be in no Executive and no Assembly without it.? If we are to believe what the leader of Sinn Fein has said todayI know that that is a hard thing to ask of the Houseit seems that Sinn Fein does not even want the legislation. It did not ask for the Bill or at least not for large parts of it, so who asked for it? Has any party demanded it as a preconditionand if none has, will the Prime Minister revise what he said?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Prime Minister's statement and I can only say that, in my view, we are faced with a secret, stitch-up deal with IRA-Sinn Fein to allow people who have carried out some of the worst atrocities of the past 35 years to obtain an amnestyan amnesty with a pseudo-judicial face and one that has the appearance of a trial.
	Many peoplenot just those in the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland, but people in all the communitiesare profoundly disturbed by the secret dealings that go on between democratic Governments and an illegal armed group. That has been a real problem. It is why the constitutional nationalists and the constitutional Unionists have felt many times during the whole peace process that they are an unimportant bit on the side because, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) said, they do not have arms.
	I shall refer to a letter that many hon. Members have received from a very brave woman, Aileen Quinton, whose mother was murdered by the IRA in the no warning, poppy day massacre in Enniskillen in 1997 as she stood wearing her medals from service in the Royal Air Force. Aileen was in the group of victims whom many of us met last week when they came to Parliament. I agree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that Aileen Quinton and the other victims have shown great dignity. They do not want revenge or retribution; as has been said, they just want justice. My distaste for people who get away with such crimes would be the same if the perpetrators were from a loyalist background. I resent the idea of Unionist versus nationalist, or Catholic versus Protestant. The sides that matter are the terrorists, their supporters, their apologists and appeasers, and the rest of us. We must decide which side we are on, and I hope that hon. Members will decide that they back the right to justice and the rights of our constituents.
	I did not receive a proper answer from the Secretary of State when I intervened on him earlier. We did not see IRA-Sinn Fein dispose of their of weapons, but we know that they decided who would witness that disposal. I should have liked the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to be present when Sinn Fein-IRA destroyed their weapons, but nevertheless, if it is not a threat any moreif that event took place and Sinn Fein-IRA are genuinely committed to democracy after disposing of their armswhy have we introduced the measure? Why is it needed? The explanation of closure does not mean anything, and it is clear that the whole thing has been brought about by secret agreement.
	The Secretary of State said that everything was difficult. The Prime Minister, too, has talked about how difficult everything is. However, Aileen Quinton points out in her letter:
	As for it being 'difficult', 'difficult' does not matter. We have been doing 'difficult' for over 30 years. We can handle 'difficult' and would be prepared to do 'difficult' for real peace, glad to in fact. This is wrong and it should be impossible.
	I believe very strongly we have used the victims to justify the measure. The victims groups, however, have not asked for it. They want to tell the House that even if we do not particularly care about what happens in Northern Irelandlet us face it, many of my colleagues are listening to our debate, but other hon. Members on both sides of the House are not doing so, and will simply come to the Chamber tonight to go into the Lobbyeveryone who lives in the United Kingdom has a vested interest in fighting this dangerous precedent, otherwise justice itself could become a victim.
	We voted against holding people without trial for 90 daysI opposed internment, and was involved in the Anti-Internment League many years agobecause summary justice does not work and leads to more resentment. However, on the very day on which other hon. Members and I were accused of being soft on terrorism, the Government introduced a Bill that will allow all those people, whatever atrocities they have committed, to get away with it.
	Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude. However much the Government seek to dress up the measure as a judicial process, the reality is that it is a costly sham. It is masquerading as a judicial process and, if accepted, it will drive a coach and horses through the process of justice. It is an abomination and we should all think carefully before accepting it. If my colleagues are the slightest bit worried about how they will vote tonight, if they would not want it to apply to their constituency, and if they cannot bring themselves to vote against the Government, they should abstain. I hope some of my colleagues will do that.
	I hope that the Government will listen. The Prime Minister is supposed to be in a listening mood these days. My party and the Government are supposed to be in a listening mood. They need to listen to the House. If we do not get rid of the detail of the Bill and change a large amount in it, we will be doing a huge injustice not only to the victims, but to people generally in the United Kingdom.

Michael Mates: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who speaks with sound common sense about a subject that she knows well.
	In my 31 years in this place, I have followed the tortuous path from the height of terrorism to something approaching peace from both sides and in many different roles, but I have never heard in the House such genuine anger and concern about a measure that a Government have introduced. The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, will forgive me if I say, with some affection, that we have had plenty of bluster from him and his hon. Friends, we have had some synthetic rage and we have had thunder and lightning, fire and brimstone. He even once accused me of being a bully, which brought to mind a parable about pots and kettles, but we will pass over that. Never have I seen such genuine upset at something that a Government are doing. The palpable unease of the Secretary of State as he behaved very generously and correctly at the Dispatch Box said it all.
	For most people in Northern Ireland, the measure is almost the last straw. We have gone from the high point of the Good Friday agreement to the even higher point of the referendumand that is when I believe it all started to go wrong. When there were doubts, the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland during that campaign and, in answer to worries, said, I am going to ensure that there is parallel progress in the implementation of this agreement by all sides. That is exactly what has not happened.
	Measures have been forced on the Government by one side, with no response by the other. First, there were the prison releases. That was difficult, but instead of pausing and saying to the other sideto Sinn Fein-IRAIt's your move, they were all let out. I have said this before, but it bears repeatingwhen I complained to the Prime Minister at Question Time one day, I met Mo Mowlam behind the Speaker's Chair. I admired her for many things. It was about five months after the referendum and she said to me, Don't worry, Gerry Adams has promised me that the arms will be gone by Christmas. That was seven long years ago.
	The Government have not learned from those mistakes. They have gone on making concessions. They have gone on doing things behind the scenes, which the right hon. Member for North Antrim rightly pointed out, although he played no part in it. Now, the Government are doing it again. Once again, a move is being made by the Government to move things forward. Why are Sinn Fein-IRA not making moves to move things forward? Why are they not letting the exiles back? Why are they not stopping the punishment beatings? Why are they not taking a grip on the criminality? Why are they still providing a paramilitary police force? No one says, You do that and then we will consider your on-the-run people. It has all been the reverse, and every time yet another concession has been wrung from the Government, which has decreased enormously the amount of confidence that the people of Northern Ireland have in the peace process. It has been back to front from the beginning. This is another stage down that road, and it seems to be the last straw for many of us.
	I shall not go over all the arguments; I shall say just two things. First, if the Bill is to go through, it should not go through without some specific guarantee about the exiles being allowed to return. Everybody pays lip service to that. It is not coincidence that it is in all three reasoned amendments, but the Government have nothing to say about it because Sinn Fein have nothing to say about it. Maybe the Government have done a deal. Maybe, when the Bill is passed, Sinn Fein-IRA will say something. Is it not their turn to move first? Should not the Government not be rather more robust in dealing with the matter?
	I hope that the House will forgive me, but I want to be brief and end by saying something about victims, and it is a personal reminiscence. When I was in Northern Ireland, a case came on to my desk of a terrorist who had been convicted of attempted murder, had served 10 years, had moved on to the next stage of his life sentence and was eligible for parole, and I was supposed to sign him off. When I considered the caseI am choosing my words carefully because I do not want the case to be identifiable as I do not know what has happened to the victim or to the terroristI realised that the terrorist lived three or four doors away from the member of the security forces whom he had tried to blow up in his car. For the past 12 years, that person had been in a wheelchair, living with the pain but knowing that justice had been done. The proposition was that 12 years later the terrorist would be released to go back home to the same street.
	Had the attempted murder been successful, it would have been a rather easy decision to make, because everything would have moved on in those 12 years. But there the victim was, still living with the consequences of what this man had done, and when he was released the victim would have to come face to face with him daily. I did not believe that that was acceptable. I was advised that I had no choice, but I said that a way had to be found, and a way was eventually found.
	If the Bill goes through unamended, there will be dozens of cases like the one of which I happen to have personal experience. A lot of people have been convicted and served their sentence, and one can at least say to the poor victim that he had some justice, but now there will be no justice at all. There will be confrontation between victims, their families, descendants of victims and the terrorists, who have paid no price for what they did. That is a fundamental denial of justice, and this therefore is a thoroughly bad Bill.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion relating to Criminal Law, the Ayes were 261, the Noes were 211, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Meg Hillier: When we last debated security in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke movingly about his hand being placed on the head of a curly-haired child who was weeping at his father's coffin, and this afternoon we heard the passion of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea). I cannot speak with such passion and direct knowledge. I am not a victim of the terror in Northern Ireland, but I grew up knowing the troubles. I was born in 1969, and the terror we have seen in Northern Ireland, the peace process over the past eight years and the subsequent developments have been the backdrop to my entire life.
	When I was thinking about today's debate, it occurred to me that when I was a teenager in the 1980s I was studying the history of the current situation in Northern Ireland while still living through it. I am now a mother myself, and despite the fact that my eldest child was born after the Good Friday agreement, we still today, as we debate these measures, have uncertainty and no directly elected Northern Ireland Government. I am sure that all mothers in the United Kingdom want their children to grow up in a world where the violence is at an end for ever, with Northern Ireland living in peace and harmony. Although there are real problems in Northern Irelandas a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I see and hear about some of them, although I bow to the expertise of hon. Members who represent seats in Northern Irelandwe have gone a long way. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to Secretaries of State past and present for their work in trying to bring that difficult situation to an end.
	The Good Friday agreement marked an historic breakthrough. The subsequent referendum and meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly showed what enormous progress was made between 10 April and 1 July 1998. Seven years later, however, the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended and direct rule from Westminster is again in place. We have seen some major milestones and some major slip-ups on the road to lasting peace, which we all want to see. I welcome the fact that the IRA has recently decommissioned its arms and formally announced the end of its armed campaign.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) criticised the Bill because it was not agreed by the people of Northern Ireland, which goes to the heart of today's debate. All hon. Members share that concern, whether or not they are present in the House. Surely the point of the whole process is that we should return to devolved decision-making, whereby the people of Northern Ireland are ruled by their directly elected representatives and not from Westminster.

Julian Brazier: How can this Bill take us towards that objective, when all the democratic parties in Northern Ireland oppose it? Indeed, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out, the Bill is being pushed through only because the one party that wanted it still had guns.

Meg Hillier: I am trying to address that point. We must deal with the remaining issues in Northern Ireland, whether that involves the Bill as drafted or whether that involves amending the legislation. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a directly elected Government, and they should decide not only matters of security, but all issues. Matters such as water rates or school reform should be dealt with not from Westminster, but from a devolved Northern Ireland Assembly. The issues that the Bill addresses must be tackled one way or another.
	The perpetrators of heinous crimes on both sides of the terrorist divide must be brought to justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is right to remind the House that we are discussing not only IRA terrorists but loyalist terrorists. I know that all hon. Members condemn all terrorism, and we must make it clear that the Bill applies to all terrorists, regardless of their background.
	I am only a new Member of this Parliament and was not a Member during the negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement. We all know that negotiations in Northern Ireland are often tortuous, and they are difficult for relative newcomers to this House fully to understand from a distance. However, I understand that we must make unpalatable decisions, and the GovernmentConservative or Labourmust take that responsibility.
	I have some concerns about the Bill, and for me there are two benchmarks. First, we have seen the pain and pressures that the prisoner release programme created in Northern Ireland, but the prisoners who were releasedrepublican or loyalistall served time, even if many of them had their sentences cut very short for the crimes that they had committed. Internationally, the most comparable situation occurred in South Africa, where the truth and reconciliation commission meant that the perpetrators of crime had to face their victims.

Ben Wallace: Does the hon. Lady agree that there are two key differences between the South African truth and reconciliation commission and the prisoner release programme in Northern Ireland: first, in South Africa people had to come forward within a time limit to avoid the risk of getting no amnesty; and, secondly, the people who attended the tribunals had to admit all their crimes, and if they were subsequently found not to have done so they lost the protection of their amnesty? Perhaps such conditions should apply to this Bill.

Meg Hillier: I was just coming to that. I was trying to judge whether the Bill measures up to two important benchmarks. The hon. Member for Aylesbury pointed out that those who did not attend the truth and reconciliation commissions faced a sanction.
	Does the Bill measure up to the two criteria that I highlighted? Yes, it does, in the sense that the perpetrators will at least face some justice, but, no, it does not in the important sense that it does not even require them to attend the tribunals in person.
	I have some serious questions for the Secretary of State. First, will he consider a requirement that those who are on the run and covered by the provisions of the Bill are required to appear at the tribunal in person?
	Secondly, what consideration has been given to requiring that those charged and convicted of murder serve some time, at least equivalent to the time served by those who were released under the prisoner release programme?
	Thirdly, what opportunity will victims have to see the evidence and to face the people who killed or maimed their loved ones?
	Finally, how will the Secretary of State be sure that those who come back no longer have connections with paramilitary groups? Sir Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable, gave us some reassurance on that in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but perhaps the Minister will clarify it when he responds.
	I will vote for the Second Reading of the Bill with a heavy heart. I am to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill, and I trust that my Front-Bench colleagues will take seriously the points made in the House this afternoon, particularly as regards people appearing in person before the tribunal.

Peter Robinson: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), although I have to say that her conclusions did not exactly arise from the argument that she presented. I hope that she might reconsider her position even before the Division, and that, if that does happen, her expectation of being on the Committee will still be met.
	For 40 years, murder and brutality have overshadowed life in Northern Ireland. During the worst of those days, as part of what seemed a numbing ritual, Ministers would emerge after each outrage and passionately pledge that the murderers would be tracked down and punished. Over all that time, Northern Ireland Members of this House have followed the coffins, buried the dead, wept with the families and come to this Chamber calling out in righteous anger for action to be taken. We would hear condemnation, receive understanding and be given sympathy. We would listen to the endless obligatory assurances that, no matter how long it took, the people of our war-torn Province could be sure of one thing: justice would be done.
	What value should the victims place on the words of those assurances today? In my time in this House, I have witnessed the passage of some grotesque legislation, but nothing that this House has done before compares to the offence that some Members are about to commit against heaven and earth tonight. Let no Member go into the Lobby unaware of the import of his or her decision. What this House is being asked to do today is against every natural, ethical, moral, spiritual, political and legal principle on which civilisation has been founded.
	At the heart of every ordered society lies the rubric that wrong-doing must be punished. At about this time   last year, in my constituency of East Belfast, a young Roman Catholic man was murdered following an   incident outside a public house. His name was Robert McCartney. Among those involved in his murder were known members of the Provisional IRA. The IRA had not sanctioned his killing, nor had it planned it. It was clearly not in the interests of that organisation to do that. Indeed, I am even prepared to say that, had the IRA known, it would have done everything it could to stop it.
	Yet, after it took place, the IRA swung into action. It tried to assist those responsible to get away with murder. Its members meticulously cleaned the scene and removed all the forensic evidence. In effect, they adopted the murder ex post facto. Condemnation was swift and widespread, but the police, the Independent Monitoring Commission and the British and Irish Governments were agreed on one issue. By assisting the murderers to escape punishment, the IRA had become partakers in their crime.
	The Government may scantily dress up the provisions of the Bill in whatever legalese they like and attribute to themselves a pretence of worthy motivation in an attempt to cover their moral nakedness. However, in assisting murderers to escape punishment for their heinous crimes, they become partakers in their evil and they will be judged for it.
	Through the Bill, the Government may gain legal authority for their shameful proposals, but the provisions will never gain moral authority. They tell us that they are introducing the Bill to keep the peace process alive. I tell them that they will not build peace on injustice. The blood of the innocent cries out against the measure.
	Looking decidedly uncomfortable, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the Bill. In a transparently implausible defence, he said:
	Under the Good Friday agreement in 1998, people who were convicted and in prison for terrorist offences pre-1998 got released. How can you possibly say they
	the on-the-runs
	should be put in prison if the people already convicted have been let out? That is why there is a symmetry if you like about dealing with prisoners and on-the-runs.
	Either the Prime Minister does not have a sound recollection of what happened to prisoners under the Belfast agreement or he does not know the meaning of the word symmetry.
	Hon. Members will have held their own views about the prisoner provisions of the Belfast agreement, which were enacted in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. I considered them to be morally wrong because they treated terrorists as a favoured class of criminal and accorded them special rights. I considered them to be politically wrong because they were not linked to paramilitary decommissioning and disbandment. I therefore voted against the legislation. However, whatever hon. Members thought of that Bill, it was an early release measure. Prisoners got immediate release only if they had served a third of their sentence, and those who had not were required to serve up to another two years.
	Today's Bill is not an early release measure but a terrorist amnesty Bill. Those who benefit from it will not spend one day in prison either on remand or on conviction. The two situations are not alike. I must tell the Prime Minister that there is no symmetry.
	The Prime Minister's second explanation is that we have to move forward. If he is moving towards a world that ditches justice and embraces murderers, I shall not go with him. If he regards forward movement as building a society in which victims are shamefully and callously treated and vile terrorists rewarded, he can move forward without the people whom I represent. The loathsome Bill is corrupt not only because its intended outcome is to assist murderers to escape punishment but because of the process used to achieve that goal. It defies reason that, under the Bill, accused terrorists will not even be asked to waste their precious time attending court for the farce of a trial. Moreover, some of them will even be able to maintain their anonymity under the provisions.
	Another outrageous provision has been touched on today, but it requires further highlighting. It is the Government's attempt to assist the terrorists to achieve not-guilty verdicts in the poor imitation of a court that the Bill sets up. Clause 7 will exempt a person who holds a certificate issued under the Bill from arrest or detention, from having his or her property searched, and from being fingerprinted. In short, the police will not be allowed to question the accused about the crime that will be brought before the special tribunal. Yet, under clause 3, the certificate will be issued when the police have only
	reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be guilty of an offence.
	A case would never be brought before a court at that stage in normal circumstances. It is the stage at which the police would bring a suspect in for questioning, and at which they would build up the final aspects of their case. It is the stage at which they would follow up the leads that flow from questioning, and at which they would tie up and tidy their evidence. But not under this Bill. Under these provisions, the police will be required to produce their evidence even though it is incomplete, without even having an opportunity to question the suspect. Moreover, if they are denied the right to fingerprint the accused, they will not be able to check whether the person might be connected to any other crimes.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the asymmetry between the Bill's provisions and those that apply to prisoners released under earlier legislation. Those released under earlier legislation were questioned by the police and fingerprinted, and had to appear in court. None of those requirements will apply to suspects under this Bill.

Peter Robinson: Under previous legislation, those people had been through the courts, been found guilty and convicted, and had been put in prison, where some of them then served a considerable part of their sentence. All of them had a minimum sentence that they had to serve. There is no symmetry between those arrangements and the Bill's proposals. If there is to be symmetry, the Government will have to table an amendment to the effect that people will have to serve a sentence of at least two years.
	Under clause 7, the prosecutor will be asked to take half-baked cases into court, and the inevitable upshot of this crackpot scheme will be not-guilty verdicts. I wonder whether that is what the Government want.
	I was propelled into active politics after a school friend of mine was murdered by the Provisional IRA. He had just left school and was in his first job. The IRA bombed the premises of the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, for which he worked. He was just a teenager, and his life was taken from him. No one has ever been found guilty of having planned that operation, but a Member who has not taken his Oath in this House was in charge of the Provisional IRA for the area in which this person was bombed and killed.
	One evening in 1978, shortly after I became an elected representative, I was preparing to go out when I heard a very loud bomb explode. The target was close by. As it transpired, it was the La Mon House hotel. I went immediately to the site, and I witnessed the most horrific scenes. The bombers had hung their device on the security grille over the hotel window, and attached a large can of petrol to it. When the bomb was detonated, it sent a huge fireball through the hotel, incinerating all those in its path. Twelve innocent people were burned alive in that attack. Their charred remains were a gruesome image, and all who saw it will carry that image in their minds for the rest of their lives. What was their crime? They were attending an evening dinner with the Irish Collie club, a dog club. Gerry Adams was arrested and questioned about the attack, and was later released. The Bill will ensure that no one spends a single day in prison for those murders.

Iris Robinson: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been dealing with the victims of the La Mon atrocity for some years, because it happened in my constituency. I asked in the House for a public inquiry, but sadly it was refused. I think that the refusal was based on the fact that, as my hon. Friend said, Gerry Adams's fingerprints were all over that atrocity, and he was arrested in the back hills of Castlereagh some time after it. What rights does my hon. Friend think the victims will receive under the Bill if the Government achieve their objective?

Peter Robinson: Under the Government's proposals, victims will have very few rights. In certain circumstances, they will have the ability to be informed that the case is being considered by the certification officer and will therefore go before the special tribunal. My hon. Friends and I will table amendments that would insert victims' rights into the Bill. They would allow time-limiting of the use of the application system for the terrorists, and open up the system to victims so that, if necessary, cases could be heard in absentia. That would give victims real closure, and those responsible for the crimes would have to serve their sentences.
	I could list a catalogue of cases for which no one has yet been convicted, but I believe that I have made my point. We are not dealing with some tidying-up exercise. We are dealing with lives that have been cruelly and abruptly ended by evil terrorists, and we are dealing with the lives of those who loved them and who are now also victims. We are dealing with people whose hopes and dreams were crushed, and whose lives have been destroyed. We are dealing with decades of hurt and pain.
	The Government have not produced the Bill because they think it right, decent or just. They have produced it because in 2001 at Weston Park and in 2003 at Hillsborough castle they made a shabby deal with the IRA. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not slow to point out to us all that it is never right to do wrong. This Bill is very wrong.
	There are those who say that if we do not support the Bill, the IRA will go back to bombing and shooting. Is that where this great nation stands? Are we so craven and unprincipled that we cower before a bunch of corner boys and thugs who make demands of us? Are we cringing into submission because savage murderers demand that we throw out due process and British justice, or they will not co-operate with us?

Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: I am afraid that I cannot. I have very little time left, and I would be allowed no extra time for the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
	Justice is a two-way street. It brings punishment to those who cause suffering, and closure to those who have suffered as a consequence. Victims have rights too. Both the European convention on human rights and the United Nations convention against torture require the United Kingdom Government to provide victims with an effective remedy. The Bill is a violation of those rights, and if this House and the other place enact it, the Government can be sure that, as a result of their defiance of those conventions, they will face a challenge in the courts.
	Members can complicate the issue if they wish, but tonight's Division will show whether they are on the side of appeasing terrorists or on the side of the victims. It will show whether Members are on the side of due process or on the side of a sleazy deal. It will show whether they believe in the separation of powers, or whether they support the Government usurping the functions of the courts. The Bill is immoral, obscene, cruel and unjust. I urge the House to decline to give it a Second Reading.

Gordon Banks: I would like to set out the background to the Bill as I see it. Since 1997, we have come a long way. In 1998, we had the Good Friday agreement, leading to the early release of 440 prisoners, and we have also had devolved government. With only 14 early releases being returned to jail for breach of the licence conditionsa 97 per cent. success rateit would appear that the action has been significantly successful.
	Even though devolved government has proved to be difficult to uphold, 1998 and 1999 saw the Patten commission producing a raft of proposals relating to crime and policing. Today, of course, we have heard much about Weston Park in 2001, when the commitment was reiterated to move the peace process forward. Consideration of on-the-runs seemed to emerge from that. In 2004, we had the Independent Monitoring Commission and this year saw the IRA statement ending the armed struggle. September then saw the historic act of decommissioning. Even more recently, we have seen the ending of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Loyalist Volunteer Force feud and the LVF's decision to stand down.
	Every one of those matters has been difficultdifficult for the Government, difficult for Northern Ireland political parties and difficult for the people of Northern Irelandbut each has moved the peace process forward and improved the stability and quality of life in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is, I believe, a better place in 2005 than it was in 1997, and there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in security-related incidents since 1997. In parallel, unemployment has dropped by 54 per cent. Many, both within and outside the House, should feel a good deal of satisfaction and pride for their role in delivering increased prosperity and stability to Northern Ireland. In view of the steps that I have outlined, it is arguably the case that the Bill is, as the Secretary of State has argued, an evolution of everything that has gone on before.
	In 2002, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), said in a written answer to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson):
	The Government have acknowledged that there is an issue concerning fugitives on the run who would stand to benefit from the early release scheme if they were convicted. As part of the package of measures proposed at Weston Park last July the Government made a commitment to take steps to resolve this issue.[Official Report, 11 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 705W.]
	What we see today is part of the Government keeping true to that commitment and not hiding from very difficult issues.
	The Bill includes a number of challenging areas, which I would like to deal with. First, some people oppose the Bill on points of principle. While I respect that viewpoint, I do not have to agree with it. For real progress to be made, difficult issues have to be faced and tough decisions taken. That certainly applies to the passage of the Bill.
	I acknowledge that many victims and their families will have difficulties with the proposals, but I would like to make two points. First, the Bill provides a real opportunity to bring closure to many crimesnot for the victims, but for the crimesand provides specific obligations, as we have heard, in respect of a certification commissioner and special prosecutor to provide a point of liaison for victims, to keep them informed of relevant cases and to see the concerns of victims as central to the role. Furthermore, the requirement for the certification commissioner to put an annual report before Parliament provides an additional level of scrutiny, which I hope is welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: One of my first memories of the troubles was of an horrific incident in which three young Scottish soldiers were lured by women connected to the IRA to a flat in west Belfast, where they were abducted by the IRA, brutally murdered and their bodies left on a road in County Armagh. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the right thing to do is to grant an amnesty to the men who perpetrated that deed? Will he return to his constituency and say that that is the right thing to do? That is what he expects me to tell my constituents in Northern Ireland.

Gordon Banks: What I will say is that it is right for Northern Ireland to move on and take advantage of all the benefits that have accrued since 1997.

Mark Durkan: My hon. Friend says that the Bill is necessary for progress, but what progress necessitates the Bill? Who says that we cannot have the institutions and other provisions set out in the Good Friday agreement unless we have this Bill?

Gordon Banks: I have not been party to those discussions, but my answer is very similar to the one that I gave to the previous intervention: it is that I believe that it is necessary to move forward so that there is a reduction[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have one debate, conducted in the correct manner.

Gordon Banks: We must ensure that crimes such as have been described today do not occur in the future. I do not want to hear that such things are continuing to happen, and I believe that the Bill will help us to make progress in that regard.

Richard Benyon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Banks: No, not at the moment.
	Secondly, the Bill offers an opportunity to move to a safer and more tolerant Northern Ireland. That Northern Ireland will be able to put violence and prejudice firmly behind it and close the door on the paramilitary past.
	Among other requirements, the Bill provides for the appointment of a certification commissioner to determine eligibility, an appeals commissioner to handle appeals, and a special prosecutor with at least 10 years' standing as a barrister or solicitor. The special tribunal, about which much has been said already, is perhaps the most difficult proposal. In it, eligible certificate holders will be tried for the certificated offence.
	It is no accident that the tribunal system should be separate from Northern Ireland's existing judicial system. It has been designed to have all the powers of the Crown court, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, but without bottlenecking the existing system. The requirement for special tribunal representatives to have held
	high judicial office or office as a county court judge in Northern Ireland or a circuit judge in England and Wales
	is evidence of the serious consideration that the Government have applied to the Bill. It would be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to put forward a Bill that would damage the current judicial system.

Nigel Dodds: It says here.

Gordon Banks: If my right hon. Friend had written the speech for me, I am sure that it would be much better than my version. The Bill attempts to preserve the current system while addressing a situation that could be quite demanding, legally.
	In various briefings, much has been made about the absence from the Bill of provisions for trial by jury. However, it is vital to understand that it deals with terrorist trials in the same way as all such trials in Northern Ireland are handled, and in which juries do not take part.
	The lack of an end-date to the process has also caused concern for many people.

Ben Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Banks: I want to finish this point. At this stage, it is difficult to predetermine an end-date, as we are not sure of the numbers of crimes involved. At present, there appear to be between 60 and 160 but, given that there are some 2,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland, it is difficult to predict the level of take-up that may emerge in future.

Iris Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Banks: No, as I want to finish this point. That the Secretary of State has a power to end the programme is understandable. The Bill allows the decision to be taken at some future date, with a level of evidence and detail that we can only guess at today. However, if during consideration of the Bill we can come up with a proposal for a way to incorporate an end-date, I am sure that I and many other hon. Members would be able to support it.

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that, since July this year, in west Belfast there have been 21 armed robberies and 37 kneecappings, which have been attributed to paramilitary groups. Does he not agree that, before we reward the terrorist groups with a Bill like this, the paramilitaries should face up to their responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement and make sure that such incidents do not continue to happen?

Gordon Banks: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.
	The application of the Bill to members of the security forces, which was raised earlier in the debate, is a reasonable proposal. I have raised the issue with a Minister in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and I believe that it would be unacceptable to apply the legislation to former paramilitaries who match the criteria, but not to members of the security forces.

Iris Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. So that we may assess his credibility, can he tell us whether he has ever been to Northern Ireland? Has he ever met the victims? I suggest that he reads the book UlsterThe Facts by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), which shows in graphic detail the extent to which the IRA perpetrated its heinous crimes.

Gordon Banks: Yes, I have been to Northern Ireland. My viewpoint as a Member of Parliament is no less validand no more validthan any other Member[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Gordon Banks: The difficulty is whether the Bill is in effect an amnesty, but it sets out a proper judicial process under which individuals will be prosecuted and, if found guilty, will have a criminal record and be on licence for the normal tariff for their conviction. If they break the law, in the terms set out in the Bill, they will be liable to imprisonment both for the new offence and for the certificated one.

Philip Hollobone: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 2,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. What has he to say about clause 7, which will mean that the police will not be able to interview suspects brought forward under this legislation?

Gordon Banks: I understand that point, but if the Bill is enacted, the new process will be what we have, and that is why we are debating it today.
	Like many people, I find the provisions on non-appearance in court difficult. If the individuals involved were required to make personal appearances in court, it would go some way to reducing the mistrust of the Bill, as we have already heard today. The ability of the defence to subpoena witnesses sits uneasily in the Bill if personal appearances are not required. I imagine that we will hear a lot more about that in Committee, in this House and in the other place. The lack of a requirement to plead guilty is also a challenge, but we must remember that the normal judicial process does not demand a guilty plea. Surely there should be an opportunity for people entering the process to be proven not guilty if the evidence and argument show that to be the case.
	The Bill sets about attempting to move Northern Ireland forward, difficult though that will beas we have seen today. Northern Ireland has as much right as any other constituent part of these islands to enjoy the economic progress made since 1997, but to enjoy such gains, peace is a vital factor.

William McCrea: rose

Charles Walker: rose

Gordon Banks: I do not intend to give way.
	The last Conservative Government and, since 1997, the Labour Government, made significant strides in delivering peace in the Province. The Bill is designed further to deliver peace as well as to take a step towards closure on a very violent and disturbed past. Each society that moves from violence to a peaceful future has to face difficult and, at times, unpalatable situations in that quest. I believe that that is the case today.
	The Bill provides a process to convict terrorists of their heinous crimes, butthe House will be pleased to learnI consider it to be far from perfect. However, it is not possible to produce a perfect piece of legislation to deal with the issues set out in the Bill. There is always a need for people to give ground, although in a perfect world that would not be necessary. The people of Northern Ireland are being asked a big question, as are we in the House. Are we big enough to recognise the past but not let our entrenchments jeopardise the future? The future should be as positive for the people of Northern Ireland as it is for the people I represent in Ochil and South Perthshire. If we can secure the passage of the Bill, we will take another significant step towards delivering that aim.

Patrick Cormack: I have real affection for the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) who sits on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, but I do not think that contribution really did him justice. When he reads his speech I hope that he will be not exactly proud of it.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who preceded me as Chairman of the Select Committee, I have never heard a Minister so savaged as the Secretary of State was today. The right hon. Gentleman behaved with great restraint and dignity and I have a regard for him. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present. I know that he went to meet the victims and we are all glad about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is talking to victims groups at present. As the Secretary of State has already seen the groupsI hope that he was converted by them, if not by ushis place is now in the Chamber and he should be listening to the remainder of the debate.
	I have been a Member of the House for 35 years and I have never had to speak in a debate on a piece of legislation that was so illogical, shoddy and base. I understand why the Government are anxious to move, as they see it, the peace process on, but it was clear from the body language, and indeed the language, of the Prime Minister when I questioned him at the Liaison Committee yesterday, and of the Secretary of State this afternoon that their heart is not in the legislation. They know that they cannot justify it.
	In many ways, this is the most bizarre day in parliamentary history, because whatever happens in the Lobbies tonight, if the Bill has its Second ReadingI hope it will not, but I suspect that it willit will have been carried not by a majority of Government Members but by the influence of the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), for West Tyrone (Mr. Doherty), for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew), for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Newry and Armagh (Conor Murphy). Five Members who do not take their seats in this place, who play no part in our deliberations and who, despite their recent protestations that they are moving towards democracy, play absolutely no part in the Parliament of the United Kingdom to which they have been elected

Nigel Dodds: They take the money.

Patrick Cormack: Oh, they take the money and they like the facilities, but they are not prepared to act as Members of the House; yet they have influenceI would even say malign influence. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made a good speech, quoted what the Prime Minister had said to him about the power of the gun. They were the most chilling words that we have heard in our debate. The hon. Gentleman was honourably elected to lead his party and honourably returned to the House with his friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr.   McDonnell), who plays a valuable part in the Select Committee; yet at Weston Park, the Prime Minister pointed out that their words and their influence did not count for as much as that of people who have not eschewed terrorism, because they had relied not on the power of the bullet but on the power of the ballot. That is disgracefulutterly disgraceful.
	I do not know whether those people are personally implicated in any of the crimes that we are obliquely talking about today, but I know that in spite of the declaration in July, which we all welcomed, and in spite of the act of decommissioning that was real, if not totalnone will know how totalthere has not, as I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, been one word of remorse or contrition.

David Simpson: Nor will there be.

Patrick Cormack: Sadly, that is very likely.
	If we are to draw a line, if we are to move forward, as we would all like to do, and if we are to create a United Kingdom where every part of that United Kingdom is as normal as the other parts, Sinn Fein-IRA must make a declaration that they have not just renounced the bullet or not just put away their arms, but that they have indeed entered fully into the democratic process. They need to take their seats and to argue their cause on the Floor of the House. They should take their place on the Select Committee. They should play a full and constructive part in building that Northern Ireland, which we all accept is part of the United Kingdom unless and until a majority of its population decides otherwise. We would respect that verdict, although I hope that that does not happen.
	What have the Government done? They have introduced the Bill, which they had no need to introduce. It is not part of the Belfast agreementnor was it in the Government's manifestobut it is a gesture of appeasement towards those who have not properly embraced the democratic process. The grotesque juxtaposition of introducing the Bill on the very day that the Government were seeking to pass some of the most draconian legislation that the British Parliament has ever had placed before it is extraordinary, and it is indeed differentiating between terrorists.
	The people who caused the atrocities to which hon. Members have referred in moving speeches today are as evil as the people who puts the bombs in the London tube, and let us not pretend otherwise. If those people who, on Remembrance Sunday 1987this is seared on my memory; I shall never forget itblew apart a community as it sought to honour its dead and created more dead are not prepared to say that they are sorry for what they have done, they are not really fit to sit down with the rest of us in a democratic forum. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Sedentary comments of that kind, coming from certain hon. Members, do not assist the debate. These are very grave matters, and they are diminished when that kind of sedentary commentor signis made.

Patrick Cormack: I do not get injury time for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but so be it.
	I was about to make a point that I have made several times this afternoon: those people who are guilty of those acts should at the very least come into an open court before a judge and be faced with their victims. This business of issuing a certificate and sending it, as was said earlier, to their holiday homes is no way of closing or drawing the line; it is itself yet another grotesque act.
	I hope that the Minister will pass on these comments to the Secretary of State, because we all wish him well. Every member of the Select Committee wants to see normality restored, wants to see the peace walls down and wants to see a Northern Ireland in which we can all take pride, but the Bill is not advancing that cause; it is retarding it. It is rewarding those who have caused desperate anguish and have been responsible for some of the worst tragedies in peacetime ever inflicted in our country.
	As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was speakingand how sensibly she spoke, Mr. Deputy SpeakerI thought again about the peculiar double standards by which we operate. She and I campaigned together at the time of the Bosnian atrocities. She and I would love to see Mladic and Karadzic brought to justice. They are on the run, but would anyone in Her Majesty's Government be happy to give them a little certificate because someone had been sent along to The Hague to say, Well, give them a certificate. They're free now.? Those are the standards that the Government are trying to impose in a part of the United Kingdom for which they are responsible.
	I am glad that the Secretary of State has returnedI am grateful to him. I beg him to listen carefully to what is said in the Chamber. Again, I say to him that the Bill is not by any definition emergency or urgent legislation. It is legislation over which we should take our time. The Bill must be subject to the most critical scrutiny and examination if there is to be any chance at all of creating something from it in which any of us can take any pride at all. As it is, the Bill is a shoddy document. It is fit only for ripping in halfas I now doand nothing else.
	The Secretary of State is a reasonable man who, as I said earlier this afternoon, has exercised great restraint. Will he reflect on what I am sure he heard this afternoon from the victims' groups? Will he reflect on the fact that almost every single hon. Member on both sides of the House who has taken part in the debate has said that they do not like the Bill? Will he either take the Bill away, which would be the best thing that he could do, or, at the very least, agree that the Select Committee or a Joint Committee of both Houses should be given six weeks to examine the Bill, go through it, take evidence and come up with something that is a little more worthy of the oldest of Parliaments and the greatest bastion of democracy? We are besmirching our reputation if we give a Second Reading to this Bill today.

Alasdair McDonnell: I am worried about the Bill because it is extremely far reaching. On the surface, as we have heard, it will affect on-the-runsmembers of the provos who may be suspected of serious crimes. However, other elements of the Bill deeply worry me. There are members of loyalist paramilitary groups, and there are renegade members of the special branch police and Army intelligence who colluded with, prompted and handled Ulster Volunteer Force killers and, indeed, a few from the IRA. Cases are ongoing and we shall hear information shortly about some of the activities in north Belfast when members of the UVF conducted operations with the knowledge of the security services in which they killed a number of innocent peopleboth Protestant and Catholicjust to keep themselves amused. Some of those people will be absolved by the Bill.
	There were members of the security forces who acted outside the law. Hon. Members referred earlier to people acting within the laws of engagement, but I shall not go there at the moment. However, there were members of the security forces who acted above and beyond the laws of engagement and the normal instructions to which they operated. Again, some of those people will be wrapped up in the Bill. Hon. Members of all parties feel threatened by the Bill because it is a catch-all measure that will absolve a lot of people from facing justice and accounting to their victims.
	I shall make only a couple of quick points because time is running out and other hon. Members wish to speak. It is fairly clear that the Bill does not stem from the agreement. It is an add-on and a side deal. Perhaps it was initiated by Gerry Adams and the provos, but even he dissociates himself from it and denies that he had much to do with it.
	The Bill does not deal merely with people who were sought pre-1998, as the Prime Minister said yesterday; it applies to anyone who might be charged, now and in the future, for 2,100 unsolved murders. It is open-ended and limitless. Anyone who is guilty or associated in any way with any one of those 2,100 murders effectively gets cleared of it. That includes 300 state killings that were in some way suspicious.
	Not only does the Bill deny the victims justice, but, worse than that, it denies them the very truth that they need for closure. As there is no time limit, those involved in killing those 2,100 people can sit in their living rooms while they wait in comfort to see whether the police ever come knocking on the door. If the police do come knocking, all those people have to do is apply, from the comfort of their homes or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggested, their holiday homes, for a certificate.
	Sinn Fein specifically negotiated that those people do not even have to go to court. Regardless of Mr. Adams's denials, we are well aware of what happened. When the Bill was announced last week, Mr. Conor Murphy, another absent Member of the House, welcomed it before he had fully read it and realised what was in it. The contrast and distress for meother hon. Members have made the same point, but it cannot be emphasised often enoughis that victims and police officers, under threat of penalty, can be compelled to turn up in court. Yet the perpetrators of some of those heinous crimes will not have to turn up.
	My hon. Friend said that the SDLP will table amendments to undo the Bill's worst aspects. If we are talking just about a small number of people who are outside our jurisdiction, let us limit it to that. If that is the bitter pill that we have to swallow, let us swallow it, but let us not make the measure all-dancing, all-embracing and all-inclusive, so that we do not know where it will end up two or three years down the road. It has to be limited, tidy and exact. People have sufferedsome for 20 years, some for 25 years, some for 30 yearsand I pay tribute to my colleague, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), who expressed that well. People who have suffered are entitled to some closure, truth and honesty.
	We have clarified that the deal was initiated as a separate side deal, starting at Weston Park and continuing at Hillsborough, between Sinn Fein and the Government. They did not involve us. We were often kept negotiating on something on the margins. All other parties were excluded from the discussions. The deal is far too vital for one-to-one negotiations, from which the vast majority of interests were excluded.
	We warned of the dangers, but others went ahead. Time and again we made it clear that the deal was way outside the remit of the agreement and what people voted for in 1998. That is a matter of public record. We published different proposals on victims and the truth that is needed for victim satisfaction. We raised our concerns time and again in Downing street and with the two Governments. Our detailed proposals for the truth process for victims are a long way from any attempt to cover up, to exclude or to collude on the past, which is what is happening to a large extent.
	Under separate legislation passed to implement the Good Friday agreement, on-the-runs would, at worst, have had to serve a maximum sentence of two years. Even if no one had to go to prison under this Bill, the victimsthose who have suffered and whose lives can never be put together again, who are the main people in all thisshould not be denied the truth, yet that is precisely what the legislation would do. My colleagues and I intend to propose as many amendments as we can to ensure that the innocent victimssome dead, but some still living and sufferingget a better deal than the Bill as it stands offers them. If we cannot get justice, we will work to ensure that at least they get the truth. To my mind, the Bill offers victims nothingnot even, as was suggested earlier, the limited benefits that victims got through the truth process in South Africa.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, which I regard as so morally wrong, so morally bankrupt, that no amount of amendmenteven if the Government wished to amend this wretched Billwill ever get me to vote for it or support it. Judging by the speeches made this afternoon, I am not alone.
	I should, of course, declare a particular interest in the Bill in that I am married to a former Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If Sir Jack were well, he would be appalled by what the Governmenthis Governmenthave presented to the House today. As right hon. and hon. MembersI congratulate the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)probably all know, Sir Jack has Alzheimer's. Today is his birthday. He is not aware that it is his birthday, but it is the reason why I always remember the date on which the George cross was awarded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It was rightly, though belatedly, awarded to mark the courage, dedication and sacrifice of 302 dead officers302 police officers. It grieves meas I know it would grieve Jack if he were aware of it, but as I said, mercifully he is notthat the Government are proposing that the murderers of policemen and women in Northern Ireland will never have to stand in court or face any tribunal; they will never have to apologise, put their hand up and say, I'm sorry. I have done wrong. The Bill as it stands will never require them to do that. It must not leave this House without the firm requirement that whoever is guilty of perpetrating the most heinous of crimes, against not only police officers but the innocent people who were in La Mon House and the relatives and friends of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea), be held to account.
	All those people deserve the right to life to be respected as much in Northern Ireland as it will be respected in the rest of the United Kingdom. I say that as one who, once upon a time, was proud of the Government, when they made the European convention on human rights part and parcel of our domestic law. I was proud because the Government sent out the message to the worldnot just to Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, but to the worldthat they respected human rights, the right to life and the right of everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to an effective remedy for breaches of that convention.
	The Bill proposes a certification commissionera wonderful title. I have no idea what it means, apart from being the title of the person who will recommend an amnesty for people who have committed the most terrible crimes. It also creates a special tribunal, a special appeal and a special prosecutor. My goodness, what an array of new appointments and gimmicks. I apologise to whoever takes up one of those offices for referring to them as gimmicks, but I mean itit is gimmickry. It is not an adequate and effective remedy for those who have suffered through the years in Northern Ireland. I am ashamed and deeply embarrassed that my Government have introduced the Bill.
	I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State met the widows and families of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, but with respect, he and his fellow Ministers cannot appreciate the depth of hurt and the enormous trauma experienced by a family when someone's life is taken by terrorist bombing and killing. Having spoken to RUC widows and families, I am sure that they would tell the Secretary of State that the first injury caused by losing a loved one was dreadful. I can tell him with confidence, as I am sure they have already told him, that the second injury is caused by their own Government giving an amnesty to those murderers, which is as deeply affecting and upsetting as the first injury.
	I made a rather cross intervention on the Secretary of StateI apologise, but I was annoyed; there is a great deal of anger in the House this afternoonto emphasise the fact that the Home Secretary and successive Home Secretaries have spoken in the House about increasing and improving public confidence in the criminal justice system. People in Bangor, Belfast and North Down are just as entitled to confidence in the criminal justice system and equality before that system as people in north Wales, north London and Bradfordunfortunately, that city comes to mind, because we collectively have lost another police officer, and I am terribly sorry about the death of that young woman. It is on the record that when the Criminal Justice Bill was proceeding through the House in 2003, the Home Office wrote to all Members serving on the Bill Committee to say that, under its provisions, Northern Ireland should not be perceived as becoming
	a safe haven for individuals who are seeking to avoid retrial.[Official Report, 19 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 798.]
	Has the Secretary of State discussed the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill in detail with the Home Office, because the special tribunal, the certification commissioner, the special appeal tribunal and the special prosecutor probably amount, in his mind at least, to a trial? He has been trying to persuade the rest of us of that case without success, bar with a few hon. Members.[Interruption.] With one hon. Member, in fact. If that is the case, will he confirm that where there is new and compelling evidence against anyone who benefits from the legislation, whether they are loyalist or republican paramilitaries or anyone else, there is joined-up thinking in the Government so that if there is new DNA evidence or if witnesses come forward, the Home Secretary's assurance to me that Northern Ireland would not be a safe haven for criminals means that those people can face another trial at any time in the future? The legislation does not come into force until 2007, and I should like a categorical assurance in the House that the Government will not obstruct the police if they wish to bring before the courts anyone found guilty of any crime in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady is characteristically persuasive. I can give that categorical assurance. Any police investigation will continue, and will be pursued however the police wish to pursue it prior to the implementation of the legislation.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful for that assurance from the Secretary of State. I would like the additional assurance that if, in the Government's mind, the provisions of the Bill amount to a trial, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which extends to Northern Ireland and drives a coach and horses through the old common law rule against double jeopardy, will apply. The Government legislated for Northern Ireland to assure the people of Northern Ireland that where new and compelling evidence becomes available at a later date, even if there had been a previous trial, as will happen if the Bill goes through, those who escape facing the courts and proper justice under the Bill will still be prosecuted under the Criminal Justice Act. I should be enormously grateful for such an assurance, which would go some way towards alleviating the great annoyance, anger and bitterness created by an unnecessary Bill being driven through the House.

Peter Hain: I probably need to write to the hon. Lady to provide the clarity that she needs in response to her question.

Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. I should be pleased if he would place a copy of his letter in the Library for the benefit of all other hon. Members who need guidance on the matter.
	As I said at the beginning, no amount of amendment will ever improve this morally reprehensible Bill. I am ashamed of the Government for bringing it before the House.

Andrew MacKay: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in a compelling objection to a very bad Bill. It was all the more impressive on what must be a sensitive date for her. She followed the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) who, like her, has immense experience of the Province. They have both reached exactly the same conclusion. I hope that when Members vote tonight, they will bear that in mind.
	I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Treasury Bench. It is right that he has been away talking to victims, but may I update him a little on what has been happening in the Chamber? We have been debating the Bill for the best part of five hours and, apart from his predecessor, quite understandably, saying a few words of faint praise for the Bill, no other Member has done so, except for a strange speech from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), who read a handout from the Whips Office. It was a painful experience.
	We have had some exceptional speeches from Labour Membersfrom the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has many objections to the Bill and spoke for the first time, I think, in a Northern Ireland debate with considerable wisdom. It is even more significant for the Secretary of State that every democratic party in Northern Ireland is opposed to his Bill. We had powerful speeches from the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and from the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Surely they should be listened to.
	I watched the Secretary of State carefully, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that he spoke with patience, allowed us a considerable number of interventions and proved again that he is a proper Member of the House of Commons and a true parliamentarian. However, in the 25 years that I have been in the House, I have never seen a Secretary of State so isolated on Second Reading. I have never seen so few Government Members speaking in support of a Bill. I have never seen the Benches so thin.
	It is a sad day and I genuinely feel sorry for the Secretary of State, but I do not believe that it is his faultthe fault lies elsewhere. At this late stage, he needs to consider not just that every party in the House is against the Bill, and not just that every democratic and peace-loving Member from Northern Ireland is against the Bill, but that so are the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and the victims to whom he has just been speaking.
	Will the Secretary of State cast his mind back to a little earlier today to Prime Minister's Question Time when we were fortunatethe ballot sometimes works in mysterious waysthat the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) had Question 1, which was a very significant question, the Prime Minister's answer to which was deeply inadequate? It will be recalled that a little later during Prime Minister's Question Time there was a moving question from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who rightly mourned the police officer who was tragically murdered in his city at the weekend. Most of us find it difficult to understand the difference between bringing to justice those who murdered the police officer in Bradford, those who committed awful atrocities on 7 July in this city, and those who will, in effect, have an amnesty under this legislation.
	We also find it bizarrethe Secretary of State rather lost his timingthat the Bill was published and received its First Reading two weeks ago, at the same time as the Terrorism Bill was being pursued. Does he not feel that there is something slightly wrong about trying to lock up people for 90 days without charging them on the one hand and giving this complete amnesty on the other hand? Did it not make it worse for the victims in Northern Ireland that that was happening at exactly the same time?As I say, I want to be fair to the Secretary of State because he knows that I have respect for him, but it was deeply insensitive for it to be happening at exactly the same time.
	The Secretary of State mentioned closure again and again. I am afraid that that has become a meaningless wordand if he would take a little advice from me, it would be best not to use it again. I am sure that he now regrets saying that the main reason for the legislation is that the courts are log-jammed and it will help. That cannot be a satisfactory reason for bringing forward legislation that will do such harm.
	Why is the legislation going ahead? We have established that it is absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement, which the Minister of State and I supported. We have established from the Secretary of State that there has been no threat from Sinn Fein and the IRA that violence will be resumed if the legislation does not go ahead. We have heard from the hon. Member for North Down, who is an expert on human rights, that we could well be in breach of human rights legislation and be taken to the European Court of Human Rights if we proceed. So just why are we going ahead with the Bill at such a pace? Just what happened at Weston Park in private? What deal was done between the Prime Minister and Sinn Fein-IRA? We need to be told before we decide to vote tonight. If no deal was done, there is no sense in proceeding with a Bill that has been so mauled during its Second Reading debate and has so little support. Even at this late hour, I hope that the Minister will withdraw the Bill and consider it further, possibly in a Special Standing Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire suggested.
	This is a very bad Bill, but today has been a very good day for Parliament in the way that it has been debated.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate. I agree entirely that this has been a debate of a very high standard, and many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken with considerable passion. At a personal level, I should say how much I admire the contribution made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)I know how difficult it must be for him to be here todayand say from his many friends in Northern Ireland that we very much appreciate the contribution that he has made to the debate today.
	I cannot say the same to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), who will not be surprised by that. Whenever he ascends to the high office to which he undoubtedly aspires, I hope that he realises that some things in life are more important than political ambition. There are high principles in politics and justice that are worth preserving, and his contribution to this debate did nothing to persuade any of us that he understands those principles in the context of the Bill. I hope that he will take the time to come to Northern Ireland and meet some of the victims groups, and I certainly intend to send a copy of his speech to all the victims groups with which I am in contact. The central theme of his speech was, It is time to move on and get over it. I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions and visit Northern Ireland to tell people that to their faces. I do not think that he has the slightest understanding of the hurt and pain that the Bill is causing in Northern Ireland.
	I echo the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who spoke with considerable passion about the sense of injustice felt by RUC widows. I know that many of the other victims in Northern Ireland, such as the families of police officers and of Ulster Defence Regiment, Royal Irish Regiment and Army soldiers, share that sense of injustice. Indeed, the issue is not confined to Northern Ireland, because the families of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland have been denied justice, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) reminded us, many hundreds of civilians also lost their lives in the course of the troubles.
	As has been said, the issue was not included in the Belfast agreement. I was involved in the negotiations leading up to the agreement, which I voted against for a number of reasons, including the provisions on the early release of terrorist prisoners. Nowhere in the agreement is there a justification for the Bill. Indeed, in an earlier response to an intervention, the Secretary of State acknowledged that the deal that he has done with Sinn Fein does not emanate from the agreement, although the Prime Minister has sought to draw such parallels. The argument has been advanced that the Bill is unfinished business and that we need it to achieve closure, but I respectfully inform the Secretary of State that in my opinion it will not achieve closure for many of the victims in Northern Ireland.
	Last Thursday evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and I met a large number of victims from south Armagh and Fermanagh, which are the areas with the largest number of unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. Hundreds of murders in which the perpetrators have not been brought to justice were committed in south Armagh and Fermanagh.
	I do not like to single out individuals, but may I say how much I admire Miss Aileen Quinton's contribution to this debate? She lost her mother in the poppy day massacre in Enniskillen in 1987, which the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), mentioned earlier. I have heard Aileen conduct radio interviews, and she has shared her views in the national media with considerable dignity. The strength of her argument on this issue is unanswerable: Aileen, like so many of the victims who have suffered as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland, feels that she will suffer doubly because of the injustice caused by this Bill.
	We want a process of healing in Northern Ireland so that we can move forward. I would say to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire that I want to move forward, but I do not want us to trample over the rights of victims in our haste to do so. We must bring people with us. Dealing with the sense of injustice is part of the process of healing. Peace is not created by injustice.
	The problem with the Bill is that it will lead to injustice. Some of the victimsthis was expressed to us very clearly when we met victims' groupswill be re-traumatised as a result of this process. There is indignation that the perpetrators can remain anonymous throughout the process and do not have to appear before a tribunal to account for their crimes. It is an aberration to describe that as justice or due process. That simply does not wash with people in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the legacy of the Bill will be that murder, intimidation and terrorism have proved successful for individuals who have engaged in such activities.
	The Secretary of State made it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to meet a demand that has been made by Sinn Fein-IRA. That demand is coming from nowhere else but one source, and one source only. I accept that not only Her Majesty's Government but the Irish Government are party to the agreement that has been reached. The Irish Government are happy to support a deal that permits the murderers of RUC officers to walk free, yet say in their own jurisdiction that the men who murdered Garda Jerry McCabe will not benefit from the process. The hypocrisy of that position shows the extent to which double standards are applied in dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA. Of course, I do not wish the murderers of Jerry McCabe to benefit. I have met Garda McCabe's widowa fine woman who has shown much courage in highlighting her case in the Irish Republic. Today, we met the widows and family members of RUC officers who were murdered and they cannot understand why that double standard should apply.

Iris Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Taoiseach is on record as saying that he would rather be in opposition than share a Government with Sinn Fein?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Indeed. We have heard Labour Members trumpeting the July statement and the Secretary of State telling us that the totality of IRA weapons have been decommissioned. Yet even now the Irish Prime Minister says that Sinn Fein is still not fit to be considered as coalition partners in the Irish Government in Dublin, who will no doubt press my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my party to form a Government in coalition with Sinn Fein. One standard applies in Stormont and another applies in Dublin.

David Davies: I am sure that many of my hon. Friends agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that the double standard, whereby British soldiers will now be treated in the same way as IRA murderers, will be hugely detrimental to our ability to recruit high quality men and women such as those who have for 30 years protected Catholic and Protestant civilians alike in the Province of Northern Ireland?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Some members of the security forces to whom I have spoken find it insulting to be categorised with terrorist murderers in benefiting from the measure. Let us not try to justify the Bill by saying that members of the security forces will benefit from it. That is not the motivation behind the measure. The motivation is to appease Sinn Fein-IRAthat is clearly the bottom line. The Government do themselves no credit by trying to shelter behind the argument that the Army and the police may benefit from the Bill.
	The Bill is a raw deal for the victims. My hon. Friends and I will table amendments in Committee in due course. I agree with the hon. Member for North Down that that will not change my mind about opposing the principle of the BillI shall continue to oppose it.

William McCrea: Will it not also be a raw deal for, and insulting to, the people of Northern Ireland and the victims if Her Majesty's Government order Labour Members to vote for the Bill? That means that they have not listened to the debate or heard the arguments, but will act as fodder for the Government. They simply obey the Whips.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. May I say, as a friend and colleague, how much I appreciated his contribution to the debate? It must have been difficult for him to share some of his experiences with the House. I appreciate the passion and the emotion with which he spoke.
	Surely, if the process is to go on, the victims must be given some rights. They should have the right to argue the case to the commissioner that a certificate should not be granted to an offender before going to the tribunal. That is a basic right, but the Bill does not afford the victims the right to put a case that the perpetrators should not receive the certificates that they seek. Victims should also have the right to make a statement in the presence of the offenders when they appear before the tribunalif they appear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said, when offenders have not come forward, surely victims should have the right to approach the commissioner to establish whether the police have evidence or information about the person or persons responsible for the murder of their loved ones and to ascertain whether there is any intention to pursue tribunal proceedings against those individualsyet not even that right is accorded them.
	The measure contains nothing that enables the victims to receive some form of compensation for the crimes that have been committed against their loved ones. Victims groups ask how the Government are recognising them in the process. Such recognition is not apparent in the Bill. Let me be clearthe victims do not want blood money, but they are entitled to reparation and compensation for their loss. The Government need to deal with that.
	FAIRFamilies Acting for Innocent Relativesin south Armagh recently submitted an application for a memorial centre for victims. As I said earlier, south Armagh is one of those areas where there has been high loss but low detection and conviction of the perpetrators. The Government could not even give the group the money for the memorial centre. They chided the victims group and said that it had to prove that it was engaging in cross-community activities. In south Armagh, that means working with Sinn Fein and republicansthe same Sinn Fein whose councillors on Newry and Mourne council prevented the victims group from hiring a community hall in Newtownhamilton. Thankfully, those councillors have been surcharged and I hope that they will be kicked out of office. The Government expect the victims to work with Sinn Fein in south Armagh, and if they do not they will not get the money for their memorial centre. What an appalling way to treat the innocent victims of terrorist violence. This shows that the Government have double standards. It is time that they gave proper recognition to the victims.
	I welcome the appointment of the victims commissionerthe Secretary of State knows thatbut the commissioner and other groups must be empowered and given due recognition in this process. There is too much money involved. I wonder how much this process will cost the taxpayer in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it will be millions of pounds. Would it not be better to give that money to the victims of IRA violence in Northern Ireland? Just to build a memorial centre in somewhere like south Armagh would not cost the Government that much, but they cannot even get that right.
	Finally, I want to quote again the Superintendents Association. Its members are senior officers in the police service whose job is to uphold the rule of law, and it has looked at this legislation and found it to be deeply flawed. It states that it will be
	injurious to the overall administration of the Criminal Justice Process in Northern Ireland, and public confidence therein.
	That is the verdict of senior police officers in Northern Ireland, and it was, after all, this Government who told us that we should listen to senior police officers. Should not the Government listen to these senior police officers and catch on? They should drop this legislation and stand by justice and democracy. That is the only way to achieve real peace in Northern Ireland. Appeasement did not work in 1939 and it will not work now. If the IRA is genuine about peace, it should not need to have injustice.

Andrew Robathan: This is a shameful Bill. It relates to a deal that was obviously done between the Prime Minister and the leaders of the IRA. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland until May, would not introduce the Billat least, that is my reading of what happened. He made a good speech today, and he should vote against it, as should the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). She pointed out the Bill's deficiencies, and she should vote against it. As the right hon. Member for Torfaen appeared unwilling to introduce it, he was replaced by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who was much more willing to do so. We know his background with the Troops Out movement, and we know where his real instincts and feelings lie. I believe that he was appointed because he was acceptable to the IRA and Sinn Fein, and that is why he is introducing this disgraceful Bill. I feared that the Belfast agreement might be built on sand, but I hoped otherwise. But as we have seen, Danegeld has been paid, and the thing about Danegeld is that one keeps on having to pay it. Concession after concession has been made. What will be the next one?
	In this brief speech, I want to concentrate on the treatment of public servants. The RUC, to which I pay due respect, should certainly be considered, but I particularly wish to talk about the Army, as I served in Northern Ireland with certain hon. Friends sitting around me, and the Bill affects friends of mine. Loyal public servants who were doing the bidding of the Government will be in the firing line as a result of this Bill. What will be the next concession? The Saville inquiry was a concession to the IRA, costing 200 million and rising. I expect that charges against soldiers will result from it, because otherwise there would be no point in making that concession to the IRA. Under this Attorney-General, I expect that the commanding officer will be charged, for he was there, and possibly the adjutant as well. The adjutant was the present Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: I am sorry, I have not got time.
	The former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Boyce, has said:
	The Armed Forces are under legal siege.[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 1236.]
	We have seen the setting up of the historic investigation team by the 6th Regiment, Royal Military Police in Northern Ireland to help the Police Service of Northern Ireland in its historic investigation. But, of course, it is investigating only soldiers. It will be working with the historic inquiry team of the PSNI. More Danegeld is being paid.
	I want to concentrate on two cases that I know a little about. Friends of all ranks were involved. The first was in Gibraltar in 1988. We all remember Death on the Rockwhat a shocker that was. The Minister will tell us what the next concession will be, but I am sure that there will be an historic investigation into this case. Why? The terrorists were plotting to blow up the changing of the guard at Government House and they would have killed hundreds of people. An outrage was being planned. Actually, it is a moot point whether the soldiers were right when they shot the IRA terrorists, because the bomb was still in Spain. But that is the point. The historic investigation could therefore easily bring charges, although the soldiers were acting in good faith, on instructions from the Government and from their commanders, and prevented a dreadful atrocity. The Government will hang those SAS soldiers out to dry, as they have done to some soldiers in Iraq, to placate the IRA.
	The other case is even worse. In May 1987, eight IRA terrorists who were armed to the teeth drove a JCB with a bomb on it into Loughall police station and exploded the device. They were then ambushed by soldiers and police officers who had been so instructed by the Secretary of State. That took place with Government approval. I would say that it was a great success in the battle against the IRA, but I fear that that is not how it strikes this Government and this Secretary of State. This Government passed the Human Rights Act 1998. When the European Court of Human Rights said in May 2001 that the human rights of those poor murdering terrorists had been violated, the Government had to pay 10,000 to each family. Under the Human Rights Act, those soldiers are already guilty. It is no surprise that in a written answer to me on 11 November, the Secretary of State said through the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), that
	the PSNI has advised us that this incident will be looked at by the Historical Enquiry Team in due course.[Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1641W.]
	What confidence can any soldier or ex-soldier have in this Government? It is a disgrace. More SAS soldiers will be hung out to dry, and there will be another concession to the IRA.
	Should Adams and McGuinnessboth on the IRA army council, and both have blood all over their handsappear before the tribunal and should they be released on licence, will they be allowed to sit in the House of Commons as murderers under licence? I make this prediction: I guarantee that, should it happen, this Government will make another concession.
	Arguably, this is the worst Bill to come before the House in recent timescertainly while I have been a Member of Parliament. I should like Defence Ministers and senior commanders of the armed forces to stand up and say, This is a disgrace, because it is a disgrace. The Sun accused me, and my hon. Friends, of being soft of terrorism. Where does it list the people who will vote for this disgraceful Bill tonight?
	When we come here we should always know what we are doing, and we should know that what we are doing is right. We should always strive to do what is right. We swear before the House that we will try to do what is right. It is not right to pass this dishonest and corrupt Bill. I hope that all Members who vote for it will hang their heads in shame.

Laurence Robertson: When we think about Northern Ireland, many words come to mindcourage being one in so many instances. Before I deal with the Bill, perhaps I can be allowed to stray for a moment to speak of the courage of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). His must have been a very difficult speech to make, but he made it with his usual commitment to the issue. He will take this in the spirit in which I mean it: he has far more friends in this place than his modesty would allow him to think. I know that he will also take this in the spirit in which I mean it. He is a man with a great sense of humour, and his great strength of character will allow him to come through these difficult times. Every Member looks forward to the eventual return of the humour for which he is well known. He is a great Member of Parliament.
	This has been a very passionate debate. I have been in the House for only eight years, but I cannot think of a time when I have seen the Government under so much fire from every corner of it. We heard a very effective speech from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who says that he hopes the Government will consider serious amendments to the Bill, and will consider other people rather than just republicans. I think that I quote him accurately.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that the Bill undermined assurances given about prisoners during the agreement referendum campaign. He also made the important point that loyalist terrorists have not decommissioned, yet they will benefit from the Bill.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke with his usual passion. He fairly said that the Bill introduces two systems of justice in Northern Ireland, but I suspect that he would accept that one of those systems is not justice at all.
	As usual, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) spoke extremely well. She pointed out that, in opposition, the Labour party did not always support anti-terrorism legislation. She asked why, if the IRA is no longer a threat, we need the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said that there are too many concessions in the Bill and that they all point one way. He provided a moving personal account of the difficulties that he had faced in one instance as a Minister. He argued that the Bill might well lead to Ministers having to take more difficult decisions, perhaps compromising victims' rights time and again.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) expressed great concern about the lack of any deadline in the Bill and the absence of any need for the accused to appear in court.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke about the great injustices of the Bill. He rightly pointed out that, because of the limit on the amount of evidence that can be gathered, it assists in the achievement of non-guilty verdicts by the accused. He spoke movingly about the events that propelled him into politics, which are highly relevant to the issues surrounding the Bill.
	Even the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks)I shall be kinder than others about himexpressed concern about the fact that the accused do not have to appear in court and about the ability of the court to subpoena witnesses, but not those who are accused.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) reminded us, in a wide-ranging speech, that the people that we are talking about in the context of the Bill are just as evil as those who bombed London. He provided a good analogy when he said that on-the-run mass murderers and terrorists from Bosnia would not be given a certificate for freedom.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) spoke about the need to provide victims with justice and truth. Indeed, he felt that the Bill lets those victims down.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) expressed shame at the Government for introducing the Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) appropriately asked exactly what deal was done at Weston Park.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) spoke about the real hurt caused in Northern Ireland by the Bill. He pointed out that the Government said only a week ago that Opposition Members should have listened to police officers in respect of proposals for 90 days, yet police officers are clearly being ignored in respect of this Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr.Robathan), who, along with some other colleagues, served in Northern Ireland, made a hard-hitting speech. He condemned the concessions that it seems the Government are making.
	It is important to ask why we need the Bill. The Government have not provided the answer to that question. Who is the Bill for? It is certainly not for the victims, who do not want it. The only political party in favour of the Bill is Sinn Fein. It is rather alarming that the Government are prepared to negotiate with Sinn Fein but will not negotiate with constitutional parties about amendments to the Bill. The Secretary of State said that there was an agreement with the Irish Government, but they are certainly not implementing the terms of the Bill.
	As hon. Members have already asked, what will result if the Bill is defeated? Let us suppose that it does not get through Parliament: what are the Government afraid will happen? The Government say that they believe the IRA when it says that the war is over. That leads me to the question of why the Bill should be introduced now. If the war is perhaps not over, is not the Bill premature?
	We have heard the IRA statement and subsequent confirmation that the IRA has put its arms beyond use, but I am not aware that it has put the proceeds of the bank robbery beyond use. As far as I know, the Government still hold the IRA responsible for that robbery, as do the Irish Government and the police in Northern Ireland. While the IRA has the means to rearm and to pay its volunteers, is not the Bill at least premature?
	The Secretary of State spoke about closurewhat he described in his article in The Times yesterday as the end game. The Good Friday agreement makes it clear that its participants believe that the aims of the criminal justice system should be to
	have the confidence of all parts of the community.
	I do not think that we can say that this Bill has the confidence of all parts of the community when it comes to the so-called justice that it will deliver.
	I shall give a very brief analogy. A few years ago, I and some other hon. Members visited Rwanda, where there had been the most awful genocide. I walked through the bones and skulls of some of the victims of that genocide, and then attended one of the court sessions. About 850,000 people had been massacred, and I said to the Justice Minister, We have all these courts set up, and we are going to send people to prison, yet we are talking about reconciliation. Can we get the reconciliation if we go down that path?
	What a naive question for me to ask. The Justice Minister said, We have to have the justice before we can have the reconciliation. That is the point that hon. Members of all parties have tried to make today.
	The Secretary of State said that we can never bring an end to the victims' hurt. That may be true, but we can make that hurt worse. I suspect that that is what the Bill will do.
	The Secretary of State did not help the process with his article in The Times. He wrote that those returning would face the prospect of a full legal process, but that is untrue, as they will not have to appear in court. He added that they would have to go through a special court before being let out on licence, but let out of where, let out of what? Those people will not have been inside for a single day. What a misleading article it was.
	There is not time for me to go through all the Bill's flaws, as I want to give the Minister an appropriate time in which to respond, but I will say that I see the Bill as yet another concession to the IRA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby asked, what will the next concession be? What will provoke it? Will it be that the IRA starts to make threatening noises again? That is unacceptable in a democracy.
	I do not mean this as a personal comment to the Minister, but he will not be surprised to hear that we will take this Bill very seriously if it reaches Committee.

David Hanson: I appreciate the tone of today's debate. This is a difficult subject, with lots of raw emotion. I hope that the House will understand if I limit the number of interventions that I take, as I have only a short time in which to respond to a long debate in which very serious issues were raised. However, to show that the Government are not afraid of debate, I point out to the House that the programme motionwhich I hope will be approvedallows for a long discussion in Committee. I assure hon. Members that I shall welcome prolonged consideration, and that provision has been made to allow the Committee's deliberations to go beyond the normal period.
	I found the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) very moving and honest. I appreciate the effort he made to come to the House in today's difficult circumstances. On behalf of the Government and Labour Members, I want to express to him and his family our condolences at his loss.
	I am also grateful to hon. Members of all parties for their efforts in addressing the very difficult issues associated with the Bill. I hope that I will have an opportunity to deal with some of the matters that have been raised, but I shall start with the question of victims. That subject has been at the heart of many of the contributions made today.
	No one could have listened to the speeches of the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) or for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson), or to the very moving contributions from the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), without thinking of the victims of the crimes that are the subject of the Bill before the House. I had the opportunity to meet victims, including Aileen Quinton and Willie Frazer, when the Bill was published two weeks ago. Yesterday, I also looked in the eyes of widows of policemen who had been killed in a brutal and cowardly way by members of the IRA. I have also met the children and parents of people who have been killed and seen the dignity with which they carry themselves. Nobody in this House can understand their pain, and nor can we look those people in the eye without recognising the further pain that this Bill will bring.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I was with Aileen Quinton when the Minister met her, by accident, in Central Lobby a couple of weeks ago. The Minister undertook to meet Miss Quinton before the Bill today. Did he do so?

David Hanson: I have offered to meet victims. I met victims yesterday and I make an offer today to meet with any victims' groups. I also met police victims yesterday and I have said that I will continue to liaise with them. I have offered a meeting to the individuals concerned and will arrange to discuss the issues with them.
	One of the reasons my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will introduce the victims commissioner from 1 DecemberBertha McDougall is a victim herselfis to ensure that victims are recognised.

Michael Gove: Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson: No, because I have limited time to reply.
	In the Bill, there is a duty on both the certification commissioner and the special tribunal to liaise with, support and inform the victims during the new process.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, the Bill was the result of discussions not as part of the Good Friday agreementwhich some hon. Members genuinely opposedbut after Weston Park in 2001 and 2003. It was notas my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) suggestedpublished secretly. It was a published document that was made available. It was also indicated at the time what steps the Government would take to bring the matter forward.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) asked, Why now? The Bill has been introduced now because part of the agreement and part of the building blocks for the agreement were to bring the IRA to the position it is now in, where it has made what I hope proves to be its historic statement in July.

Several hon. Members: rose

David Hanson: I will not give way at this stage, because I wish to make some important points in limited time. My time to reply is limited because we wanted to give hon. Members an opportunity to make their points about the Bill.
	We wanted to ensure that the Independent Monitoring Commissionwhose reports are being consideredhad the chance to recognise what the IRA has undertaken. As part of the political peace process and as part of the building blocks for that process, this measure has been introduced. And, yes, I do say to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), to the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and to my hon. Friends for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) and for Vauxhall, that we introduced the Bill at this time for those reasons.
	The Bill, if it passes all its stages, will not come into effect until 2007 and we will have an opportunity to judge how the IRA performs between now and then. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, we need to restore the institutions in Northern Ireland, so that local people can decide local priorities.

Mark Durkan: If the Minister is as concerned as he says he is about victims, why are the Government stabbing new grievances into victims' grief and calling it closure? In relation to the Minister's last comment that the Bill will pave the way for the restoration of the institutions, I ask what will not happen if the Bill is not passed? What will be denied us, in terms of the institutions and the agreement, if the Bill is not passed?

David Hanson: My hon. Friend will be aware that part of the discussions at Weston Park and part of the reason that the Bill has been taken forward is because it was part of the building blocks to get people to make the statement in July in the first place.
	I wish to make it clear for hon. Members on both sides of the House that there are tight eligibility criteria for the scheme. People cannot qualify for the scheme if they are members of Continuity IRA, the Real IRA, the UVF, the LVF or any specified organisation. They cannot be involved in terrorism now and qualify for the scheme. They cannot have been involved in offences after 10 April 1998 and qualify for the scheme. They cannot have received a sentence for any further crime and qualify for the scheme. That is an important aspect.
	Some Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, the right hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for East Hampshire, and the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Foyle and for Montgomeryshire have called the measure an amnesty. That is a debatable point and people will argue about it, but individuals will come before a court, they will be prosecuted and could be found guilty; a situation where individuals could be subject to criminal prosecution and released on licence is not an amnesty as I understand it.

John Baron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Hanson: No, there are only three minutes left. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for all of the debate so I certainly will not give way to him.
	Several Members referred to non-appearance in court. That is a serious matter and it was raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the hon. Members for North Down and for Montgomeryshire, my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Ochil and South Perthshire and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. Non-appearance in court is a difficult issue. We have taken a judgment, because we want to get individuals through the scheme. We want them to qualify for the scheme, to come to account and to face justice as a result of a criminal record.
	For the reasons that we have outlined we support the Bill as it stands, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said we shall examine amendments in Committee, tabled by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire or others. We shall consider what has been said on both sides of the House today, including the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and others. We shall consider the issue in Committee and in another place, and reflect on the all the points that have been made.
	There will be a tight licence under the legislation. If convicted individuals breach the licence, become members of, or involved in supporting, specified organisations get involved in terrorism or are convicted of other crimes, they will face recall and imprisonment. Under the early release scheme that we introduced, individuals have lost their licence and faced the consequences.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch asked about end dates for the scheme. The Secretary of State will have the power to set an end date and we shall consider that in due course unless the scheme comes to a natural end.
	I want to mention two further issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned exile. The Government certainly do not support the process of exiling. It must end and we utterly condemn activities of groups on either side of the community that are aimed at intimidating individuals in Northern Ireland. I understand the concerns that have been expressed today. It is our intention to listen to suggestions during the passage of the Bill to ensure that we tackle the question of exiling and ensure that intimidation does not occur.
	The second point relates to interaction with the historical inquiry team. It is not our intention, in any way, shape or form, to undermine the efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in reinvestigating old murders. Those investigations can take place until the Bill comes into effect. The PSNI can continue to pursue them, irrespective of their eligibility for the scheme. The Bill is about seeking justice, to ensure that individuals are given criminal records, that victims know who has committed the crime and that individuals are held on licence if they are convicted after 2007.
	We have included the armed forces and security services because we feel that it would be unfair and impractical to hold an individual on a terrorist basis who could be released after 2007, whereas an individual from the military could be charged with a similar offence and find themselves in jail for that period.
	This is part of the political peace process. It is the key to getting where we are today. It is the key to the future. It is the key to ensuring that there are no future victims in Northern Ireland. The Government's concern is to ensure that we do not create future victims. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):
	The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 262.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

NORTHERN IRELAND (OFFENCES) BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 15th December 2005.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (OFFENCES) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Tax and Civil Partnership Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.

Corporation Tax

That the draft Tax and Civil Partnership (No. 2) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 24th October, be approved.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	  
	Extreme Internet Sites

Martin Salter: I present the petition of residents of Reading and others, numbering more than 50,000 signatures.
	The petitioners declare their objection to the presence of extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification and private profit. The petitioners note the recent horrific murder of the Brighton schoolteacher Jane Longhurst by a man who had become an avid user of corrupting internet sites. The petitioners wish their views to be taken into account in respect of the Home Secretary's consultation, which ends on 2 December.
	The petition continues:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Internet Service Providers to take action to block access to these sites; to introduce legislation to overhaul the Obscene Publications Act to make it a criminal offence to possess such images; to call for better international co-operation to close down sites hosted abroad; and to include internet images in the UK in the remit of OFCOM.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table

David Lepper: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Brighton and Hove and others, signed by some 2,000 individuals. The petition
	Declares their objection to the presence of extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification. The petitioners note the recent horrific murder of Brighton school teacher Jane Longhurst by a man who had become an avid user of corrupting internet sites such as 'necrobabes', 'death by asphyxia' and 'hanging bitches'.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Internet Service Providers to take action to block access to these sites; to introduce legislation to overhaul the Obscene Publications Act to make it a criminal offence to possess such images; to call for better international co-operation to close down sites hosted abroad; and to include internet images in the UK in the remit of OFCOM.
	To lie upon the Table.

IsItFair Campaign

Mark Oaten: I rise to present a petition signed by 374 of my constituents from Winchester and the surrounding villages calling for a fairer council tax system.
	To lie upon the Table.

Susan May

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Michael Meacher: I wish to raise the case of Susan May in the light of continuing concerns about the safety of her conviction and against the background of new material that has come to light in recent years.
	Mrs. May was imprisoned on 5 May 1993, convicted of murdering her elderly aunt, Mrs. Hilda Marchbank. Mrs. May was Mrs. Marchbank's devoted niece and carer. She has always maintained her innocence, and having served the sentence set down by the court and now been released, she still strongly insists that her name should now be cleared.
	The trial judge said that the main plank of the evidence against Mrs. May was the forensic issues, and I therefore start with those. The three forensic experts from the Forensic Science Service, were Mr. Michael John Davie, Dr. Javaid Hussain and Dr. Wilfred Basely. In June 1996, Mr. Davie was discredited in the Court of Appeal in the case of the Crown v. Doheny, where the conviction was overturned. The Forensic Science Service carried out an internal investigation, the Holman report, regarding Mr. Davie's conduct in Mrs. May's case, and was concerned that his work had fallen short of the standards expected. At second appeal, the prosecution asked that Mr. Davie's evidence should be withdrawn. I should add that the defence was only recently made aware of the contents of the report.
	Regarding the second of the forensic experts at the trial, Dr. Hussain, in May 2004 forensic science students at Paisley university carried out an examination of the evidence that he presented at the trial. He had testified that in his opinion he was certain that the three stains were in blood. Dr. Hussain's area of expertise was fingerprint detection and enhancement, not blood analysis. The students pointed out that the tetra-amino biphenyl test Dr. Hussain used was not a test from which he could draw so certain a conclusion and that it is only a very general screening test. As they said:
	Almost any biological material, in addition to blood, would show positive by this method.
	Indeed, Professor Jamieson, who was formerly a police forensic expert and is now professor of forensic sciences at Glasgow university, has commented that it is very clear that in Mrs. May's case the prosecution forensic experts made declarations well beyond their remit which were prejudicial and damaging.
	Turning to the third forensic expert, after the trial, Mrs. May's then solicitor sought for appeal purposes the assistance of a Forensic Science Service expert, Dr. Basely. That solicitor's behaviour at that time was considered to be actionable by Bindman  Co. solicitors who took over representation of Mrs. May's case.
	My second main point is that Mrs. May's trial solicitor had been advised by Mr. Gartside QC to procure independent forensic expert advice for the defence. That advice was not acted on. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has chosen to use the Forensic Science Service, the same service that carries out work for the police, for its forensic analysis of Mrs. May's case. Again, I simply make the point that a conflict of interest must occur when the same forensic laboratory is asked to represent both parties.
	The third general issue is that the use of DNA evidence in court by the FSS has been growing over the past 15 years, and many convictions have been secured on the basis of such evidence. There is, however, growing disquiet, because the criterion for DNA identification has been raised from identical readings at six locations to identical readings at 10 locations. Even that is now being described as unsatisfactory by Dr. Jefferies, the founding expert in the DNA field, who prefers identification on the basis of identical readings at 15 locations.
	In Mrs. May's case, when the police took the cleaner to the house three days after the murder, they did not ask whether she had seen stains on the wall when she cleaned the house on the day before the murder. Her evidence, which was key to the prosecution case, was sought only some four weeks after Mrs. May's arrest, which was seven weeks after the murder. The cleaner was never given the opportunity to see the stains on the wall. The stain was not taken off the wall until five days after the murder, and it did not arrive at Dr. Basely's laboratory until 29 April, which was about seven weeks after the murder.
	My fourth point concerns the disclosure of evidence to the defence by the police, which fell well short of complete openness. There are a number of examples of non-disclosure or only part disclosure in Mrs. May's case, and I shall briefly present three of them. First, a red car was seen parked outside the house on the night of the murder at approximately 12.45 am. Although the engine was running, there was no one in the car, which was there for 15 minutes. The defence did not draw the jury's attention to those facts. The three occupants have never been identified. Two separate witnesses saw the car. The defence was told that it was never found. Since the second appeal, it has come to light that the police did in fact locate a red car fitting the description. It belonged to the sister of a violent burglar, Michael Rawlinson, who had been drawn to the attention of the police as having been involved in this murder by two people who knew him. The sister had advertised and sold the car within three days of the murder. Forensic evidence taken from the car was never processed.
	Secondly, in the police log for the first day of the investigation, clothing fibres are recorded as having been found on Mrs. Marchbank's hand. When taken to the forensic laboratory, they were described as
	visible fibres from left hand.
	When that exhibit appeared in Mr. Davie's statement, which is the document from which the defence started its investigation, he had recorded them as hairs, which would have been of little interest to the defence because in 1992 hairs were not able to provide a person's identification. Further investigation has shown that the police could not match any of Mrs. May's or the deceased's clothing with those fibres. The jury was robbed of significant discussion regarding the origin of the fibres because of the mischievous labelling of the exhibit.
	Thirdly, the jury were told of an exhibit labelled, Craftsman Baker Paper Baga rather odd descriptionwhich turned out to be a paper bag containing meat scraps that tested positive for blood. There were finger marks on the outside of the bag that should have been tested but were not. All that I can sayI do not think that one could go further than thisis that that exhibit presents an innocent source of blood from which it is possible that Mrs. May could have made the stains on the day prior to the murder, but it was lost to the trial by a sloppy or mischievous forensic process.
	I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to insist, on behalf of the Home Office, that the Criminal Cases Review Commission adopt a policy of forensic examination that is completely independent of the Forensic Science Service, the organisation that carries out most of the police forensic analysis. I further call on her to instigate a system of total disclosure to the defence of all case evidence, from whatever source, that is relevant to this case, without the need for itemised requests.
	After a clearly flawed process, in forensic and legal terms, before and during Mrs. May's trial, those are the minimum conditions required for justice to be seen to be done. I therefore earnestly ask that those procedures be now put in place so that the continuing and significant doubts and uncertainties about this case can finally receive the fullest and most transparent examination of all the relevant facts that have previously been denied.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) for giving me the opportunity not only to provide brief responses to the specific points that he raised, but to explain how this case has been handled so far. He will be familiar with much of that.
	I know that my right hon. Friend has maintained an interest in the case. I also know that since her conviction, Susan May has pursued her case with two appeals against the conviction, two applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and a complaint against the police. I should like to take the opportunity to say something brief about each of them. Afterwards, I shall deal with the specific points about disclosure and the Forensic Science Service.
	I am glad that we have a system that enables the Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider and reopen such cases, because I believe that if there has been a miscarriage of justice, we are most likely to be able to determine it through that mechanism.
	Let me start with the first appeal. Four years after her conviction, Susan May lost her first appeal on 14 February 1997. The Court of Appeal rejected the fresh medical evidence that Susan May had suffered a memory gap about the circumstances of her aunt's death and said that it did not regard the conviction as unsafe. The appeal was followed by the first Criminal Cases Review Commission review. The case was one of several that was transferred to the commission from the Home Office in April 1997 following its establishment under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The commission considered an application from Susan May and concluded that it was worthy of further judicial scrutiny. In November 1999, the CCRC referred it to the Court of Appeal.
	In 1993, Susan May also made a complaint against the police, but because of her impending criminal trial, it remained on the table and stayed there until 1998 while she pursued her first appeal. Greater Manchester police carried out the investigation of the complaint under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority in accordance with the procedure that then pertained. In July 1999, an investigation report was submitted to the Police Complaints Authority, which issued a statement to the effect that the complaint had been investigated to its satisfaction. After that, the investigation report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which closely examined the report and concluded that there was no evidence that could secure a conviction.
	The next step was to consider disciplinary action and, on 21 October 1999, Greater Manchester police submitted their proposals to the Police Complaints Authority. The Police Complaints Authority concluded that all bar one of the 22 allegations had not been substantiated because there was insufficient evidence to prove that any police officer had breached the police discipline code. The substantiated allegation was to do with an early interview by the police. It took place before Susan May's arrest and before she was cautioned. As my right hon. Friend said, she wanted to make the point that she should have been regarded as a suspect and not a witness, thereby having full protection under the law. The Police Complaints Authority agreed with her, and that became one of the subjects of Susan May's second appeal.
	At the second appeal, the Court of Appeal heard arguments on the bloodstained handprint on a wall at the murder scene and the treatment of Susan May as a witness rather than a suspect, thereby denying her the protection under the law in relation to various comments that she made. The appeal judges ruled that her conviction was not unsafe and dismissed the second appeal on 7 December 2001.
	Let me consider the second review by the CCRC. In August 2002, Mrs. May made a renewed application to the commission, and the second review is still going on. As my right hon. Friend knows, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss in detail the specific issues involved. I have inquired into that. The case is complex and I understand that the CCRC is carrying out several lines of investigation. A decision about whether to refer the case back to the Court of AppealI reiterate that that is a decision solely for the CCRCwill be made once its investigations are complete. In deciding whether to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, the commission will apply the statutory test of whether there is a genuine possibility of the conviction being quashed. The decision on whether a conviction should be quashed rests with the Court of Appeal. That process means that I cannot deal with some of the detailed matters that my right hon. Friend raised.

John McDonnell: It would be extremely helpful if we could have an indication of the time scale of the review being carried out by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. If the Minister cannot give us such an indication, will she at least take the message from the House that it is important that the commission now expedite the matter, given that the lady has now been released and wants some closure so that she can live her life afresh?

Fiona Mactaggart: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall communicate to the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission the views that hon. Members have expressed in this debate about the importance of bringing this matter to a conclusion. Of course, that is a matter for the chairman, but I shall ensure that he is made aware of the feeling in the House.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton mentioned two specific issues relating to the case. The first involved disclosure. I should start by pointing out that the common law disclosure arrangements that applied up to April 1997 were superseded by a statutory scheme in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, which pertains thereafter. We have recently strengthened the 1996 Act in part 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The relevant amendments came into force on 4 April this year. Although the legislation has been amended, its fundamental principle remains the same: that justice depends on full and frank disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material.
	Under the Act, the prosecution is under a statutory obligation to disclose to the defence all material which
	might reasonably be considered capable of undermining
	the prosecution case, or of assisting the defence case. This duty applies throughout the trial. This is a strong test designed to ensure that the defence gets the material that it needs and that the trial focuses on the points at issue. To ensure that the prosecutor has all the necessary information, there is a statutory code of practice, which has recently been revised, and which obliges the police to retain, record and reveal all relevant investigative material to the prosecutor. I might add that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 strengthens the scheme of prosecution disclosure. Under the unamended Act, two different prosecution disclosure tests applied, one before the defence had produced a defence statement and one after. We have amalgamated those into a single new test, the effect of which will be to ensure that the defence gets discloseable material at an earlier stage than hitherto.
	My right hon. Friend's suggestion that all case material should be handed over to the defence is, I fear, unrealistic in most cases. Many cases generate large volumes of investigative material, and under my right hon. Friend's proposed arrangements it would fall not only to the prosecutor to consider unused investigative material, but to the defence as well, thereby duplicating effort. Considerable time would be wasted in considering large volumes of material that did not satisfy the disclosure test. It is also important to note that some material cannot be handed over to the defence. This includes so-called sensitive material, such as that relating to the identity of informants. Such material might sometimes have to be withheld from the defence on public interest immunity grounds, provided, of course, that the court had made an order to that effect.
	To conclude, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 already contains a strong disclosure scheme that provides adequate safeguards for the defence. The key is for practitioners to apply the Act correctly in all cases. We have a responsibility in all aspects of the prosecution service and elsewhere to ensure that it is properly applied.

John McDonnell: It would be useful to put on record that, in this case, neither the volume nor the sensitivity of the material was used as an argument for barring the disclosure of information which I believe could have ensured that this lady was proved innocent.

Fiona Mactaggart: I said that I would draw the attention of the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the debate. He will note what my hon. Friend has said. I am trying hard not to make specific comments about a case that is under consideration by that body, which is the proper body to decide on these matters. I am trying to deal with the general issues.
	My right hon. Friend raised a general issue about the Forensic Science Service, and about the circumstances in which its services should be secured. The Forensic Science Service is an executive agency of the Home Office, and is the principal provider of impartial forensic science services to the police and other investigating forces. It provides information to support the investigation of crime and evidence for the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, and it also gives independent advice to the Home Office and others who serve the administration of justice, including the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
	The Forensic Science Service works within the criminal justice system for both the defence and the prosecution, and takes pride in its impartiality. I think it perfectly possible for an independent forensic science service to provide proper advice on different occasions and examine evidence scientifically for different parties in circumstances such as these. I think we should make it clearer that the duty of experts giving evidence should be to the court and to justice. The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a consultation paper that examines the issue of expert evidence and responsibility in relation to the court. While there may be contestability in regard to particular issues of expert evidence, it is important that the court should be satisfied about the expertise, and satisfied that it has been deployed properly in specific cases.
	I asked about the different tests in the Susan May case to which my right hon. Friend referred. I was told that the tests for the police were for blood, while those for the commission were for DNA. Two different processes are involved. The tests for the commission were carried out in Birmingham, and a report on the results was compiled by a Forensic Science Service employee in Wetherby. Those involved in the DNA tests were not involved in the original inquiry.
	I believe that it is quite possible for a body such as the Forensic Science Service not to seek to justify an initiating decision, but to provide impartial, accurate, expert evidence in cases such as this. If there is evidence that demonstrates that it has failed to do that in a particular case, it should be taken into account by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in its review.

Michael Meacher: I made it very clear that three of the forensic science experts who were brought in as witnesses had since been discredited. No one is casting aspersions on the Forensic Science Service in general. All I am saying is that it is important for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have access to wholly independent evidence. I am sure that those who are concerned about the case would be satisfied if the CCRC were to seek such evidence from a wholly independent source, in the light of the very bad experience in this case.

Fiona Mactaggart: As I have said more than once, how the CCRC conducts the review is a matter for it. The principle is important. My right hon. Friend was probably involved, as I was, in campaigning for an independent body to be able to review miscarriages of justice. It cannot provide that independent function if Ministers tell it how to conduct its business. However, as I said, I will ensure that the chairman of the CCRC is made aware of this debate and all the points that have been raised in it. That is, I think, the only appropriate assurance that I can give from the Dispatch Box.
	We want the criminal justice system to be fair, open and accessible. Those who believe that they have a genuine grievance, as does Mrs. May, should have recourse to redress. Her case to date, since her trial and conviction, has been exposed to a great deal of scrutiny. She has used the criminal justice system in pursuit of justice for herself and it is right that she should have the opportunity to do so. She has a further opportunity in the present review of the CCRC. We look forward to its result.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 12 and Transitory Provisions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 27 October, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 211.

Question accordingly agreed to.